English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

Opposing and following responses in sensorimotor speech control: Why responses go both ways

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons138192

Franken,  Matthias K.
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour;
Neurobiology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons2693

Acheson,  Daniel J.
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour;
Neurobiology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons69

Hagoort,  Peter
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour;
Neurobiology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Franken, M. K., Acheson, D. J., McQueen, J. M., Hagoort, P., & Eisner, F. (2018). Opposing and following responses in sensorimotor speech control: Why responses go both ways. Poster presented at the International Workshop on Language Production (IWLP 2018), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0001-647F-1
Abstract
When talking, speakers continuously monitor the auditory feedback of their own voice to control and inform speech production processes. When speakers are provided with auditory feedback that is perturbed in real time, most of them compensate for this by opposing the feedback perturbation. For example, when speakers hear themselves at a higher pitch than intended, they would compensate by lowering their pitch. However, sometimes speakers follow the perturbation instead (i.e., raising their pitch in response to higher-than-expected pitch). Current theoretical frameworks cannot account for following responses. In the current study, we performed two experiments to investigate whether the state of the speech production system at perturbation onset may determine what type of response (opposing or following) is given. Participants vocalized while the pitch in their auditory feedback was briefly (500 ms) perturbed in half of the vocalizations. None of the participants were aware of these manipulations. Subsequently, we analyzed the pitch contour of the participants’ vocalizations. The results suggest that whether a perturbation-related response is opposing or following unexpected feedback depends on ongoing fluctuations of the production system: It initially responds by doing the opposite of what it was doing. In addition, the results show that all speakers show both following and opposing responses, although the distribution of response types varies across individuals. Both the interaction with ongoing fluctuations and the non-trivial number of following responses suggest that current speech production models are inadequate. More generally, the current study indicates that looking beyond the average response can lead to a more complete view on the nature of feedback processing in motor control. Future work should explore whether the direction of feedback-based control in domains outside of speech production will also be conditional on the state of the motor system at the time of the perturbation.