Control of voice fundamental frequency in speaking versus singing

Abstract

In order to investigate control of voice fundamental frequency (F0) in speaking and singing, 24 adults had to utter the nonsense word ['ta:tatas] repeatedly, while in selected trials their auditory feedback was frequency-shifted by 100 cents downwards. In the speaking condition the target speech rate and prosodic pattern were indicated by a rhythmic sequence made of white noise. In the singing condition the sequence consisted of piano notes, and subjects were instructed to match the pitch of the notes. In both conditions a response in voice F0 begins with a latency of about 150 ms. As predicted, response magnitude is greater in the singing condition (66 cents) than in the speaking condition (47 cents). Furthermore the singing condition seems to prolong the after-effect which is a continuation of the response in trials after the frequency shift. In the singing condition, response magnitude and the ability to match the target F0 correlate significantly. Results support the view that in speaking voice F0 is monitored mainly supra-segmentally and controlled less tightly than in singing.

Voice responses to changes in pitch of voice or tone auditory feedback

“…The role of the pitch-shift response in stabilizing voice F 0 by correcting for pitch perturbations has been widely recognized (Burnett et al, 1998;Burnett and Larson, 2002;Donath et al, 2002;Hain et al, 2000;Larson et al, 2001;Natke et al, 2003;Natke and Kalveram, 2001). Additionally, there has been preliminary evidence for the presence of reflexive changes in voice F 0 in response to short-duration nonverbal sounds such as claps (Baer, 1979) and clicks (Sapir et al, 1983b).…”

“…Conversely, when the feedback pitch is perceived lower, voice F 0 is increased. A compensatory pitch-shift response has been demonstrated following pitch perturbations during sustained vocalizations (Burnett et al, 1998;Jones and Munhall, 2002;Kawahara, 1995;Larson et al, 2000), whistling (Anstis and Cavanagh, 1979), glissandos (Burnett and Larson, 2002), and nonsense syllables (Donath et al, 2002;Natke et al, 2003;Natke and Kalveram, 2001). The pitch-shifting technique is a useful method to manipulate auditory feedback in real time, and provides a means to directly investigate the relationship between auditory feedback and voice F 0 control during ongoing vocalizations.…”

Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech

“…Recent studies have used transient, unexpected auditory feedback perturbations to demonstrate auditory feedback control of speech. Despite being unable to anticipate the perturbation, speakers respond to pitch Donath et al, 2002;Jones and Munhall, 2002;Natke et al, 2003;Xu et al, 2004) and formant shifts (Houde and Jordan, 2002;Purcell and Munhall, 2006b) by altering their vocal output in the direction opposite the shift. These compensatory responses act to steer vocal output closer to the intended auditory target.…”

Audio–vocal system regulation in children with autism spectrum disorders

“…This technique allows one to quantitatively measure the audiovocal system. In this technique, brief, unanticipated perturbations in voice pitch feedback are presented to subjects as they sustain vowels (Burnett et al 1998;Hain et al 2000), speak ), or sing (Natke et al 2003). This paradigm reveals an automatic (or reflexive) mechanism for stabilizing voice F 0 by correcting for errors in voice F 0 production based on the auditory feedback.…”