Integration of auditory and somatosensory error signals in the neural control of speech movements - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 Aug;106(2):667-79.
doi: 10.1152/jn.00638.2010. Epub 2011 May 11.

Integration of auditory and somatosensory error signals in the neural control of speech movements

Yongqiang Feng  1 , Vincent L Gracco, Ludo Max
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Integration of auditory and somatosensory error signals in the neural control of speech movements

Yongqiang Feng et al. J Neurophysiol. 2011 Aug.

Abstract

We investigated auditory and somatosensory feedback contributions to the neural control of speech. In task I, sensorimotor adaptation was studied by perturbing one of these sensory modalities or both modalities simultaneously. The first formant (F1) frequency in the auditory feedback was shifted up by a real-time processor and/or the extent of jaw opening was increased or decreased with a force field applied by a robotic device. All eight subjects lowered F1 to compensate for the up-shifted F1 in the feedback signal regardless of whether or not the jaw was perturbed. Adaptive changes in subjects' acoustic output resulted from adjustments in articulatory movements of the jaw or tongue. Adaptation in jaw opening extent in response to the mechanical perturbation occurred only when no auditory feedback perturbation was applied or when the direction of adaptation to the force was compatible with the direction of adaptation to a simultaneous acoustic perturbation. In tasks II and III, subjects' auditory and somatosensory precision and accuracy were estimated. Correlation analyses showed that the relationships 1) between F1 adaptation extent and auditory acuity for F1 and 2) between jaw position adaptation extent and somatosensory acuity for jaw position were weak and statistically not significant. Taken together, the combined findings from this work suggest that, in speech production, sensorimotor adaptation updates the underlying control mechanisms in such a way that the planning of vowel-related articulatory movements takes into account a complex integration of error signals from previous trials but likely with a dominant role for the auditory modality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Top: stylized illustrations of downward (left, dark gray arrows) or upward (right, light gray arrows) force (f) as a function of the distance between jaw position (p) and threshold (T) located 1 mm below the position at movement onset. The shaded area indicates the range of acceptable start positions (each trial's stimulus word was presented when the jaw was held within this range for 1 s). Bottom right: schematic illustration of the resulting changes in jaw movement extent in the presence of downward (dark gray trace) or upward (light gray trace) forces relative to a nonperturbed condition (black trace).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Individual subject data for jaw position at peak displacement (top) and first formant (F1) frequency (bottom) during /ε/ in “bet” and “heck” (left) and /æ/ in “bat” and “hack” (right) with and without unpredictable force perturbations on the jaw. Solid, shaded, and open bars indicate productions with a downward force perturbation, without perturbation, and with an upward force perturbation, respectively. Error bars indicate SEs. Subjects 1–4 were women; subjects 5–8 were men.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Group mean F1 frequency for /ε/ (“bet” and “heck”) and /æ/ (“bat” and “hack”) in four conditions. Individual subject data were normalized relative to the baseline mean value using the latter as the reference when converting frequency measures from Hertz to cents. Error bars indicate SE. **P < 0.05 and Cohen's d > 0.5 (see Table 2).
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Group mean F1 frequency for four test words in the postperturbation phase normalized to baseline mean value. Test words were never produced with formant-shifted feedback and served to examine generalization. Error bars indicate SEs. **P < 0.05; *P < 0.07.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Group mean jaw sensor position at peak displacement for /ε/ (words “bet” and “heck”) and /æ/ (words “bat” and “hack”) in four conditions. Individual subject data were normalized relative to the baseline mean value. Error bars indicate SEs. **P < 0.05 and Cohen's d > 0.5 (see Table 5).
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Group mean anterior tongue sensor position at peak displacement for /ε/ (words “bet” and “heck”) and /æ/ (words “bat” and “hack”) in four conditions. Individual subject data were normalized relative to the baseline mean value. Error bars indicate SEs. **P < 0.05 and Cohen's d > 0.5 (see Table 6).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Abbs JH, Gracco VL. Control of complex motor gestures: orofacial muscle responses to load perturbations of lip during speech. J Neurophysiol 51: 705–723, 1984 - PubMed
    1. Battaglia PW, Jacobs RA, Aslin RN. Bayesian integration of visual and auditory signals for spatial localization. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 20: 1391–1397, 2003 - PubMed
    1. Baum SR, McFarland DH. The development of speech adaptation to an artificial palate. J Acoust Soc Am 102: 2353–2359, 1997 - PubMed
    1. Burnett TA, Freedland MB, Larson CR, Hain TC. Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 103: 3153–3161, 1998 - PubMed
    1. Cohen HB. Some critical factors in prism-adaptation. Am J Psychol 79: 285–290, 1966 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources