Effect of Delayed Auditory Feedback on Musical Performance

Havlicek, Larry L.

doi:10.2307/3344070

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some forms of feedback can disrupt movement altogether. By applying delayed auditory feedback (DAF), speech and musical performance are interrupted (Black, 1951;Fukawa, Yoshioka, Ozawa, & Yoshida, 1988;Havlicek, 1968;Howell & Powell, 1987;Lee, 1950;Mackay, 1968;Siegel, Schork, Pick, & Garber, 1982). The magnitude of delay is also an important consideration, with DAF of approximately 200 ms being the most disruptive (Fairbanks & Guttman, 1958;Hashimoto & Sakai, 2003;Stuart, Kalinowski, Rastatter, & Lynch, 2002).…”

Section: Motor Response or Motor Disturbancementioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the cerebellum in adaptation: ALE meta‐analyses on sensory feedback error

Johnson

Belyk

Schwartze

et al. 2019

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely accepted that unexpected sensory consequences of self‐action engage the cerebellum. However, we currently lack consensus on where in the cerebellum, we find fine‐grained differentiation to unexpected sensory feedback. This may result from methodological diversity in task‐based human neuroimaging studies that experimentally alter the quality of self‐generated sensory feedback. We gathered existing studies that manipulated sensory feedback using a variety of methodological approaches and performed activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta‐analyses. Only half of these studies reported cerebellar activation with considerable variation in spatial location. Consequently, ALE analyses did not reveal significantly increased likelihood of activation in the cerebellum despite the broad scientific consensus of the cerebellum's involvement. In light of the high degree of methodological variability in published studies, we tested for statistical dependence between methodological factors that varied across the published studies. Experiments that elicited an adaptive response to continuously altered sensory feedback more frequently reported activation in the cerebellum than those experiments that did not induce adaptation. These findings may explain the surprisingly low rate of significant cerebellar activation across brain imaging studies investigating unexpected sensory feedback. Furthermore, limitations of functional magnetic resonance imaging to probe the cerebellum could play a role as climbing fiber activity associated with feedback error processing may not be captured by it. We provide methodological recommendations that may guide future studies.

show abstract

Section: Motor Response or Motor Disturbancementioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the cerebellum in adaptation: ALE meta‐analyses on sensory feedback error

Johnson

Belyk

Schwartze

et al. 2019

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have delayed the auditory feedback of one’s own voice (Fairbanks & Guttman, 1958) and observed significant slowing of vocal articulation and linguistic rhythm under conditions of delayed auditory feedback in speaking and singing, as well as delays and disruptions of performance on various musical instruments (Harrington, 1988; Havlicek, 1968). In addition to delaying auditory feedback, studies have also manipulated auditory feedback in other ways, such as by pitch shifting or formant shifting the voice in near-real time.…”

Section: Dissociating Functional Streams With Feedback Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dual-Stream Neuroanatomy of Singing

Loui

2015

Music Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Singing requires effortless and efficient use of auditory and motor systems that center around the perception and production of the human voice. Although perception and production are usually tightly coupled functions, occasional mismatches between the two systems inform us of dissociable pathways in the brain systems that enable singing. Here I review the literature on perception and production in the auditory modality, and propose a dual-stream neuroanatomical model that subserves singing. I will discuss studies surrounding the neural functions of feedforward, feedback, and efference systems that control vocal monitoring, as well as the white matter pathways that connect frontal and temporal regions that are involved in perception and production. I will also consider disruptions of the perception-production network that are evident in tone-deaf individuals and poor pitch singers. Finally, by comparing expert singers against other musicians and nonmusicians, I will evaluate the possibility that singing training might offer rehabilitation from these disruptions through neuroplasticity of the perception-production network. Taken together, the best available evidence supports a model of dorsal and ventral pathways in auditory-motor integration that enables singing and is shared with language, music, speech, and human interactions in the auditory environment.

show abstract

“…Lee (1951) observed that speech with DAF sounded like stuttered speech (but see Howell, 2004b): Speakers slowed down, prolonged vowels, and generated more dysfluencies when speaking with delayed auditory feedback compared to speech with normal feedback. Research on the effect of DAF on music performance began with Havlicek (1968; though reference to "preliminary experiments" was made by Kalmus, Denes, & Fry, 1955), who showed that DAF disrupted performance on many musical instruments, including keyboard, brass, woodwind, and string instruments. …”

Section: Manipulations Of Feedback Timing (Synchrony)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordination of perception and action in music performance

Pfordresher¹

2006

Advances in Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONWhen performing musical sequences, people plan actions to produce acoustic events that communicate thoughts and emotions (for reviews see Gabrielsson, 1999;Jones & Holleran, 1992;Juslin & Sloboda, 2001;Palmer, 1997;Sloboda, 1982;1985;.Sequence production in contexts such as music and speech involves communicating a message through sound, a process that is probably guided by monitoring the perceived consequences of one's actions (Levelt, 1989;MacKay, 1987;Palmer & Drake, 1997). However, little research has addressed the role of self-perception in music performance. My research has explored this issue by examining the ways in which the maintenance of fluency during music performance depends on matches between actions and auditory feedback (the sounds one creates). Results suggest that higher-order representations of musical structure guide both the planning of actions and the perception of auditory feedback (cf. Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001;MacKay, 1987;Müsseler, 1999;Prinz, 1997).The lack of research on the role of auditory feedback may result from its apparently obvious importance to music performance. How else could music be learned or communicated but through close monitoring of sound? Nevertheless, some evidence indicates that the importance of auditory feedback may be circumscribed.On the one hand, the presence of sound during learning facilitates recall during performance, even for skilled pianists (Finney & Palmer, 2003). On the other hand, learning to produce a sequence of key presses on a piano does not depend on the presence of sound, even for people without any musical training (Pfordresher, 2005, Experiment 3). Furthermore, the absence of sound during keyboard performance of a learned melody has negligible effects on trained performers (Finney, 1997;Finney & Palmer, 2003;Pfordresher, 2005;Repp, 1999;Repp & Knoblich, 2004) or untrained performers (Pfordresher, 2005). actions when auditory feedback is present, though they may not rely on the presence of feedback. Disruption from altered feedback therefore may result from miscoordination between perception and action. The present article reviews research on the disruptive effects of altered auditory feedback to music performance, focusing in particular on the effects by the author (for more extensive reviews on the role of auditory feedback see Finney, 1999;Smith, 1962;Yates, 1963; for reviews focused on speech with applications for stuttering see Howell, 2004aHowell, , 2004b. The focus of the research summarized here is on keyboard performance, which is the only domain of music performance that has been studied extensively with respect to altered auditory feedback. This review is organized into two main sections, the first summarizes recent results of different kinds of feedback alterations, and the second reflects on the theoretical implications of these results. EFFECTS OF ALTERED AUDITORY FEEDBACK (AAF)Research on the interplay between perception and action in music performance has relied mainly on the altered auditory f...

show abstract

Effect of Delayed Auditory Feedback on Musical Performance

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

The role of the cerebellum in adaptation: ALE meta‐analyses on sensory feedback error

The role of the cerebellum in adaptation: ALE meta‐analyses on sensory feedback error

A Dual-Stream Neuroanatomy of Singing

Coordination of perception and action in music performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About