Past studies have shown that when formants are perturbed in real time, speakers spontaneously compensate for the perturbation by changing their formant frequencies in the opposite direction to the perturbation. Further, the pattern of these results suggests that the processing of auditory feedback error operates at a purely acoustic level. This hypothesis was tested by comparing the response of three language groups to real-time formant perturbations, (1) native English speakers producing an English vowel /e/, (2) native Japanese speakers producing a Japanese vowel (=e <=), and (3) native Japanese speakers learning English, producing /e/. All three groups showed similar production patterns when F1 was decreased; however, when F1 was increased, the Japanese groups did not compensate as much as the native English speakers. Due to this asymmetry, the hypothesis that the compensatory production for formant perturbation operates at a purely acoustic level was rejected. Rather, some level of phonological processing influences the feedback processing behavior.
E-negotiators' credibility was compared to that of face-to-face (FTF) negotiators in an integrative bargaining task. Dyads were randomly assigned to negotiate either on the computer or FTF. E-negotiators perceived their opponents to be less credible and reported less selfcredibility than FTF negotiators. Although lying did not vary significantly from FTF to e-negotiations, self-credibility and lying were negatively correlated. E-negotiators were also more likely to advocate using dishonesty in the future. Consistent with psychological distance theory, skepticism regarding the credibility of e-negotiators appears warranted.
The representation of speech goals was explored using an auditory feedback paradigm. When talkers produce vowels the formant structure of which is perturbed in real time, they compensate to preserve the intended goal. When vowel formants are shifted up or down in frequency, participants change the formant frequencies in the opposite direction to the feedback perturbation. In this experiment, the specificity of vowel representation was explored by examining the magnitude of vowel compensation when the second formant frequency of a vowel was perturbed for speakers of two different languages (English and French). Even though the target vowel was the same for both language groups, the pattern of compensation differed. French speakers compensated to smaller perturbations and made larger compensations overall. Moreover, French speakers modified the third formant in their vowels to strengthen the compensation even though the third formant was not perturbed. English speakers did not alter their third formant. Changes in the perceptual goodness ratings by the two groups of participants were consistent with the threshold to initiate vowel compensation in production. These results suggest that vowel goals not only specify the quality of the vowel but also the relationship of the vowel to the vowel space of the spoken language.
The interaction of language production and perception has been substantiated by empirical studies where speakers compensate their speech articulation in response to the manipulated sound of their voice heard in real-time as auditory feedback. A recent study by Max and Maffett [(2015). Neurosci. Lett. 591,[25][26][27][28][29] reported an absence of compensation (i.e., auditory-motor learning) for frequency-shifted formants when auditory feedback was delayed by 100 ms. In the present study, the effect of auditory feedback delay was studied when only the first formant was manipulated while delaying auditory feedback systematically. In experiment 1, a small yet significant compensation was observed even with 100 ms of auditory delay unlike the past report. This result suggests that the tolerance of feedback delay depends on different types of auditory errors being processed. In experiment 2, it was revealed that the amount of formant compensation had an inverse linear relationship with the amount of auditory delay. One of the speculated mechanisms to account for these results is that as auditory delay increases, undelayed (and unperturbed) somatosensory feedback is given more preference for accuracy control of vowel formants.
Past studies have shown that speakers spontaneously adjust their speech acoustics in response to their auditory feedback perturbed in real time. In the case of formant perturbation, the majority of studies have examined speaker's compensatory production using the English vowel /ɛ/ as in the word "head." Consistent behavioral observations have been reported, and there is lively discussion as to how the production system integrates auditory versus somatosensory feedback to control vowel production. However, different vowels have different oral sensation and proprioceptive information due to differences in the degree of lingual contact or jaw openness. This may in turn influence the ways in which speakers compensate for auditory feedback. The aim of the current study was to examine speakers' compensatory behavior with six English monophthongs. Specifically, the current study tested to see if "closed vowels" would show less compensatory production than "open vowels" because closed vowels' strong lingual sensation may richly specify production via somatosensory feedback. Results showed that, indeed, speakers exhibited less compensatory production with the closed vowels. Thus sensorimotor control of vowels is not fixed across all vowels; instead it exerts different influences across different vowels.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.