Voice-selective prediction alterations in nonclinical voice hearers

Abstract

Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) are a cardinal symptom of psychosis but also occur in 6–13% of the general population. Voice perception is thought to engage an internal forward model that generates predictions, preparing the auditory cortex for upcoming sensory feedback. Impaired processing of sensory feedback in vocalization seems to underlie the experience of AVH in psychosis, but whether this is the case in nonclinical voice hearers remains unclear. The current study used electroencephalography (EEG) to investigate whether and how hallucination predisposition (HP) modulates the internal forward model in response to self-initiated tones and self-voices. Participants varying in HP (based on the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale) listened to self-generated and externally generated tones or self-voices. HP did not affect responses to self vs. externally generated tones. However, HP altered the processing of the self-generated voice: increased HP was associated with increased pre-stimulus alpha power and increased N1 response to the self-generated voice. HP did not affect the P2 response to voices. These findings confirm that both prediction and comparison of predicted and perceived feedback to a self-generated voice are altered in individuals with AVH predisposition. Specific alterations in the processing of self-generated vocalizations may establish a core feature of the psychosis continuum.

Auditory predictions and prediction errors in response to self-initiated vowels

“…Interestingly, a recent study (Pinheiro et al, 2018) testing non-clinical voice hearers using a similar setup as the first experiment in the current study, also using natural vowel sounds, showed that the N1-supression effect is reversed in non-clinical voice hearers with high symptom scores compared to those with low symptom scores whereas the P2-supression effect is maintained in both groups. This is in accordance with findings in schizophrenia patients (Ford, et al, 2014) using a similar paradigm, which indicates that alterations in generating motor-toauditory predictions might be linked to developing auditory hallucinations (Brebion et al, 2016;Pinheiro et al, 2017).…”

“…In a first experiment, a standard N1-suppression paradigm was used which has been studied extensively using click sounds, sinusoidal sounds or complex instrumental sounds (Baess, Jacobson, & Schröger, 2008;Baess, Horváth, Jacobson, & Schröger, 2011;Knolle et al, 6 2012; Lange, 2011;Martikainen, Kaneko, & Hari, 2005 (MEG); McCarthy & Donchin, 1976;Schäfer & Marcus, 1973). Here, we compared complex, natural vowels that were self-initiated via a finger tap to the same vowels, externally-produced (i.e., pre-recorded vowels /a:/), similarly to a recent study by Pinheiro and colleagues (Pinheiro, Schwartze & Kotz, 2018). This first experiment examined whether the N1-suppression paradigm was applicable to complex stimuli, such as speech sounds in a highly controlled setup.…”

Sensorimotor conflicts induce somatic passivity and louden quiet voices in healthy listeners

“…For instance, studies reported a change in loudness perception of self-generated tones (by a button press), compared to tones presented passively [22][23][24][25] , which was associated with attenuated neural responses [26][27][28][29][30] . Recent studies have demonstrated that such auditory-motor self-attenuation effects can also be obtained for more complex sounds, such as voices 31,32 . Together, these studies show that motor activity (e.g.…”

Learning to Expect: Predicting Sounds During Movement Is Related to Sensorimotor Association During Listening

“…Beyond the attenuation of the incoming sounds during a performance, as indexed by N1 peak suppression, modulation of other peaks during an action have also been discussed in terms of sensory prediction. While it is not well understood (Crowley and Colrain, 2004; Tong et al, 2009) and relatively unclear what sensory prediction outcomes they could represent (Horváth, 2015; Pinheiro et al, 2018), modulation of the positive-going P2 peak around 200 ms is also reported during action (Chen et al, 2012; Knolle et al, 2013; Timm et al, 2014; Ghio et al, 2018). Effects include decreased suppression for delayed stimulus onsets (Behroozmand et al, 2011; Pereira et al, 2014), pitch-shifted sounds (Behroozmand et al, 2014), or trained sounds (Reinke et al, 2003; Tong et al, 2009).…”