Brain activations during conscious self‐monitoring of speech production with delayed auditory feedback: An fMRI study

Abstract

Abstract:When a speaker's voice returns to one's own ears with a 200-ms delay, the delay causes the speaker to speak less fluently. This phenomenon is called a delayed auditory feedback (DAF) effect. To investigate neural mechanisms of speech processing through the DAF effect, we conducted a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiment, in which we designed a paradigm to explore the conscious overt-speech processing and the automatic overt-speech processing separately, while reducing articulatory motion artifacts. The subjects were instructed to (1) read aloud visually presented sentences under real-time auditory feedback (NORMAL), (2) read aloud rapidly under real-time auditory feedback (FAST), (3) read aloud slowly under real-time auditory feedback (SLOW), and (4) read aloud under DAF (DELAY). In the contrasts of DELAY-NORMAL, DELAY-FAST, and DELAY-SLOW, the bilateral superior temporal gyrus (STG), the supramarginal gyrus (SMG), and the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) showed significant activation. Moreover, we found that the STG activation was correlated with the degree of DAF effect for all subjects. Because the temporo-parietal regions did not show significant activation in the comparisons among NORMAL, FAST, and SLOW conditions, we can exclude the possibility that its activation is due to speech rates or enhanced attention to altered speech sounds. These results suggest that the temporo-parietal regions function as a conscious self-monitoring system to support an automatic speech production system. Hum. Brain Mapping 20:22-28, 2003.

Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech

“…However, their activation is noteworthy when considered with respect to other findings. The greater right IFt response during shifted feedback is consistent with the finding of increased BOLD response in this region when auditory feedback was delayed during speech production (Hashimoto and Sakai, 2003). The IFt increase was accompanied by increased right pSTg activation.…”

“…4A). Increased bilateral activation of posterior temporal regions during perturbation speech is consistent with previous results from studies of auditory feedback disruption, including delayed auditory feedback (Hirano et al, 1997;Hashimoto and Sakai, 2003), pitch perturbation (McGuire et al, 1996;Zarate and Zatorre, 2005;Fu et al, 2006) and noise masking (Christoffels et al, 2007) Numerous lines of evidence support the hypothesis that the expected consequences of articulation and resulting auditory feedback are compared in posterior temporal cortex (see Guenther et al, 2006 for detailed discussion). Portions of posterior left PT and lateral pSTg bilaterally have been shown to respond during both speech perception and speech production in several studies (Hickok et al, 2003;Buchsbaum et al, 2005).…”

Neural modeling and imaging of the cortical interactions underlying syllable production

“…The Buchsbaum and Hickok studies indicated that these regions might be Iateralized to the left hemisphere. However, nsing delayed auditory feedback, Hashimoto and Sakai (2003) showed bilateral activation of the posterior superior temporal gyms and the inferior snpramarginal gyrus. Moreover, activity within the posterior superior temporal gyrus and superior temporal sulcus was correlated with size of the dis fluency effect caused by the DAF.…”

“…Examples include functional magnetic resonance imaging (IMRI) studies (e.g., Ackermann, Wildgruber, Daum, & Grodd, 1998;Baciu, Abry, & Segebarth, 2000;Binder, 1997a;1997b;Binder et al, 1995;1996;Buchsbaum, Hickok, & Humphries, 2001;Buckner, Raichle, & Petersen, 1995;Buckner, Raichle, Miezin, & Petersen, 1996;Hashimoto & Sakai, 2003;Lotze, Seggewies, Erb, Grodd, & Birbaumer, 2000b;Riecker, Ackennarm, Wildgruber, Dogil, & Grodd, 2000;Rueckert et al, 1994;Urban et al, 2003;Wildgruber, Ackermann, & Grodd, 2001), positron emission tomography (PET) studies (e.g., Demone! et al, 1992;Demone!, Price, Wise, & Frackowiak, 1994;Etard et al, 2000;Fiez, Raichle, Balota, Tallal, & Petersen, 1996;Hirano et al, 1996;1997b;1997a;Mazoyer et al, 1993;Mellet, Tzourio, Denis, & Mazoyer, 1998;Papathanassiou et al, 2000;Petersen, Fox, Posner, Mintun, & Raichle, 1988;Petersen, Fox, Snyder, & Raichle, 1990;Wise, Boussaoud, Johnson, & Caminiti, 1997;Wise, Greene, Buche!, & Scott, 1999;Zatorre, Evans, Meyer, & Gjedde, 1992;Zatorre, Meyer, Gjedde, & Evans, 1996), electroencephalography (EEG) studies (e.g., Martin-Leeches, Schweinberger, & Sommer, 1997;Mills, Coffeycorina, & Neville, 1993;Neville, Coffey, Holcomb, & Tallal, 1993;van Turem10ut, Hagoort, & Brown, 1997), and magnetoencephalography (...…”

Neural correlates of verbal feedback processing: An fMRI study employing overt speech

“…However, in a later study, feedback was manipulated by filtering and delaying the verbal output, which resulted in more bilateral activation of the STG [Hirano et al, 1997]. More recently, using fMRI, Hashimoto and Sakai [2003] reported more activation in the temporo-parietal regions for delayed auditory feedback conditions than for normal feedback.…”