Error-dependent modulation of speech-induced auditory suppression for pitch-shifted voice feedback

Abstract

BackgroundThe motor-driven predictions about expected sensory feedback (efference copies) have been proposed to play an important role in recognition of sensory consequences of self-produced motor actions. In the auditory system, this effect was suggested to result in suppression of sensory neural responses to self-produced voices that are predicted by the efference copies during vocal production in comparison with passive listening to the playback of the identical self-vocalizations. In the present study, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in response to upward pitch shift stimuli (PSS) with five different magnitudes (0, +50, +100, +200 and +400 cents) at voice onset during active vocal production and passive listening to the playback.ResultsResults indicated that the suppression of the N1 component during vocal production was largest for unaltered voice feedback (PSS: 0 cents), became smaller as the magnitude of PSS increased to 200 cents, and was almost completely eliminated in response to 400 cents stimuli.ConclusionsFindings of the present study suggest that the brain utilizes the motor predictions (efference copies) to determine the source of incoming stimuli and maximally suppresses the auditory responses to unaltered feedback of self-vocalizations. The reduction of suppression for 50, 100 and 200 cents and its elimination for 400 cents pitch-shifted voice auditory feedback support the idea that motor-driven suppression of voice feedback leads to distinctly different sensory neural processing of self vs. non-self vocalizations. This characteristic may enable the audio-vocal system to more effectively detect and correct for unexpected errors in the feedback of self-produced voice pitch compared with externally-generated sounds.

Sensory–motor networks involved in speech production and motor control: An fMRI study

“…Physiology studies have documented this modulatory effect as speaking-induced auditory suppression, revealed by a decrease in the amplitude of the N100 event-related potentials (ERPs) in response to feedback pitch perturbations during speaking compared with playback (Behroozmand and Larson, 2011; Flinker et al, 2010; Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2005; Houde et al, 2002). A number of other studies have reported that auditory suppression has been reduced when subjects produced rapid and complex speech (Ventura et al, 2009), spoke in a foreign language (Simmonds et al, 2011) or stuttered (Beal et al, 2011), indicating an increased demand for processing auditory feedback information during speech production.…”

“…EEG, MEG, ECoG) of speech production and motor control in an auditory feedback perturbation paradigm (Behroozmand and Larson, 2011; Behroozmand et al, 2011, 2009; Chang et al, 2013; Flinker et al, 2010; Greenlee et al, 2013, 2011; Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2006, 2005; Houde et al, 2002; Sitek et al, 2013). Results of these studies showed that the motor act of speaking modulates speech sound processing in auditory cortical areas.…”

“…This modulatory effect was examined by comparing neural responses to perturbed speech feedback during both speaking and passive listening to the playback of self-produced speech. The major findings indicated that neural activity in auditory cortex was largely suppressed during speaking compared with playback conditions (Behroozmand and Larson, 2011; Chang et al, 2013; Flinker et al, 2010; Greenlee et al, 2011; Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2006, 2005; Houde et al, 2002; Sitek et al, 2013) and suppression was maximum when predicted and actual speech feedback were closely matched (i.e. no or small feedback error) (Behroozmand and Larson, 2011).…”

“…The major findings indicated that neural activity in auditory cortex was largely suppressed during speaking compared with playback conditions (Behroozmand and Larson, 2011; Chang et al, 2013; Flinker et al, 2010; Greenlee et al, 2011; Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2006, 2005; Houde et al, 2002; Sitek et al, 2013) and suppression was maximum when predicted and actual speech feedback were closely matched (i.e. no or small feedback error) (Behroozmand and Larson, 2011). However, when feedback was briefly perturbed in the middle of speech, neural responses within auditory cortex were increased during speaking (Behroozmand et al, 2009; Chang et al, 2013; Greenlee et al, 2013; Liu et al, 2010).…”

Comparison of Perceptual and Motor Responses to Changes in Intensity and Voice Fundamental Frequency

“…In recent studies [62,63,64,65], the authors conducted an ERP and FAF(frequencyaltered feedback)experiment in order to findt he ERP neural sensory components involved in the pitch shift reflex. In Hawco studies [62] the participants vocalized for 3s ,w hile subjected to modifieda uditory feedback.…”