Perceptual calibration of F0 production: evidence from feedback perturbation.

Hearing one's own speech is important for language learning and maintenance of accurate articulation. For example, people with postlinguistically acquired deafness often show a gradual deterioration of many aspects of speech production. In this manuscript, data are presented that address the role played by acoustic feedback in the control of voice fundamental frequency (F0). Eighteen subjects produced vowels under a control (normal F0 feedback) and two experimental conditions: F0 shifted up and F0 shifted down. In each experimental condition subjects produced vowels during a training period in which their F0 was slowly shifted without their awareness. Following this exposure to transformed F0, their acoustic feedback was returned to normal. Two effects were observed. Subjects compensated for the change in F0 and showed negative aftereffects. When F0 feedback was returned to normal, the subjects modified their produced F0 in the opposite direction to the shift. The results suggest that fundamental frequency is controlled using auditory feedback and with reference to an internal pitch representation. This is consistent with current work on internal models of speech motor control.

[1]  R. Held.  Plasticity in sensory-motor systems. , 1965, Scientific American.

[2]  B. Wyke,et al.  Articular reflex mechanisms in the larynx. , 1965, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[3]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Movement control in skilled motor performance. , 1968 .

[4]  W. Zemlin.  Speech and Hearing Science : Anatomy and Physiology , 1968 .

[5]  H. Lane,et al.  The Lombard Sign and the Role of Hearing in Speech , 1971 .

[6]  D. Klatt,et al.  Discrimination of fundamental frequency contours in synthetic speech: implications for models of pitch perception. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Maureen Stone,et al.  Compensatory vowel characteristics resulting from the presence of different types of experimental dental prostheses , 1976 .

[8]  M. Stone,et al.  Compensatory alveolar consonant production induced by wearing a dental prosthesis , 1978 .

[9]  S Hamlet,et al.  Conditioning prostheses viewed from the standpoint of speech adaptation. , 1978, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Perceptual Structures and Distributed Motor Control , 1981 .

[11]  C. Larson,et al.  Human laryngeal responses to auditory stimulation. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Charles R. Larson,et al.  Brain mechanisms involved in the control of vocalization , 1988 .

[13]  J. Sundberg,et al.  Relationship between changes in voice pitch and loudness , 1988 .

[14]  Robert F. Coleman,et al.  Normal variations in habitual pitch , 1991 .

[15]  H Lane,et al.  Speech of cochlear implant patients: a longitudinal study of vowel production. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Eric Vatikiotis-Bateson,et al.  Inverse Dynamics of Speech Motor Control , 1993, NIPS.

[17]  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.

[18]  D H McFarland,et al.  Incomplete compensation to articulatory perturbation. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[20]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Forward Models for Physiological Motor Control , 1996, Neural Networks.

[21]  D H McFarland,et al.  The development of speech adaptation to an artificial palate. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Frank H. Guenther,et al.  Speech motor control: Acoustic goals, saturation effects, auditory feedback and internal models , 1997, Speech Commun..

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

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

[25]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning , 1999, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[26]  C. Larson,et al.  Effects of pitch-shift velocity on voice Fo responses. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Michael I. Jordan.  Motor Learning and the Degrees of Freedom Problem , 2018, Attention and Performance XIII.