A Bayesian Account of Vocal Adaptation to Pitch-Shifted Auditory Feedback

Motor systems are highly adaptive. Both birds and humans compensate for synthetically induced shifts in the pitch (fundamental frequency) of auditory feedback stemming from their vocalizations. Pitch-shift compensation is partial in the sense that large shifts lead to smaller relative compensatory adjustments of vocal pitch than small shifts. Also, compensation is larger in subjects with high motor variability. To formulate a mechanistic description of these findings, we adapt a Bayesian model of error relevance. We assume that vocal-auditory feedback loops in the brain cope optimally with known sensory and motor variability. Based on measurements of motor variability, optimal compensatory responses in our model provide accurate fits to published experimental data. Optimal compensation correctly predicts sensory acuity, which has been estimated in psychophysical experiments as just-noticeable pitch differences. Our model extends the utility of Bayesian approaches to adaptive vocal behaviors.

[1]  R. J. Beers,et al.  Motor Learning Is Optimally Tuned to the Properties of Motor Noise , 2009, Neuron.

[2]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Visuomotor Adaptation: How Forgetting Keeps Us Conservative , 2015, PloS one.

[3]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  The relationship between frequency selectivity and pitch discrimination: sensorineural hearing loss. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Robert J. van Beers,et al.  How does our motor system determine its learning rate , 2012 .

[5]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  An internal model for sensorimotor integration. , 1995, Science.

[6]  Maurice A. Smith,et al.  Environmental Consistency Determines the Rate of Motor Adaptation , 2014, Current Biology.

[7]  Jeffery A. Jones,et al.  Auditory-motor mapping for pitch control in singers and nonsingers , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. , 1998, Science.

[9]  S. Sober,et al.  Vocal learning is constrained by the statistics of sensorimotor experience , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  O. Tchernichovski,et al.  A novel paradigm for auditory discrimination training with social reinforcement in songbirds , 2014, bioRxiv.

[11]  Mollie K. Marko,et al.  Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Relevance of error: what drives motor adaptation? , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  C. Larson,et al.  Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  Samuel J. Sober,et al.  A simple computational principle predicts vocal adaptation dynamics across age and error size , 2014, Front. Integr. Neurosci..

[15]  C. Larson,et al.  Audio-vocal responses to repetitive pitch-shift stimulation during a sustained vocalization: improvements in methodology for the pitch-shifting technique. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Chang Liu,et al.  Just noticeable difference of tone pitch contour change for English- and Chinese-native listeners. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  P. Marler,et al.  Culturally Transmitted Patterns of Vocal Behavior in Sparrows , 1964, Science.

[18]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning , 2004, Nature.

[19]  Eric I. Knudsen,et al.  Gated Visual Input to the Central Auditory System , 2002, Science.

[20]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Causal Inference in Multisensory Perception , 2007, PloS one.

[21]  Jay J Bauer,et al.  Vocal responses to unanticipated perturbations in voice loudness feedback: an automatic mechanism for stabilizing voice amplitude. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Thomas M Donath,et al.  Control of voice fundamental frequency in speaking versus singing. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[24]  C. Larson,et al.  Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Jeffery A. Jones,et al.  Perceptual calibration of F0 production: evidence from feedback perturbation. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Xiaoqin Wang,et al.  Neural substrates of vocalization feedback monitoring in primate auditory cortex , 2008, Nature.

[27]  Georg B. Keller,et al.  Neural processing of auditory feedback during vocal practice in a songbird , 2009, Nature.

[28]  Robert J. van Beers,et al.  How Does Our Motor System Determine Its Learning Rate? , 2012, PloS one.

[29]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[30]  Jeffery A. Jones,et al.  The relationship between vocal accuracy and variability to the level of compensation to altered auditory feedback , 2012, Neuroscience Letters.

[31]  Hanjun Liu,et al.  Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F0 level on the pitch-shift reflex. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Kurt A. Thoroughman,et al.  Motor adaptation to single force pulses: sensitive to direction but insensitive to within-movement pulse placement and magnitude. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.