Toward a better understanding of the perception of self-produced speech

Shuster, Linda; Durrant, John D.

doi:10.1016/s0021-9924(02)00132-6

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note, the mastoid bone imposes a natural low-pass filter making sounds more ''self-like'' or veridical when pitch is slightly shifted down, as with the half semi-tone pitch shift (Shuster and Durrant, 2003). Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia: Can it explain auditory hallucinations?

Ford

Mathalon

2005

International Journal of Psychophysiology

230

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia: Can it explain auditory hallucinations?

Ford

Mathalon

2005

International Journal of Psychophysiology

230

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As described above, our 'unaltered' feedback condition was actually a 0.3 semitone pitchshift down of participants' feedback, which we used to better match the perception of the sound of their own voice [10]. The fact that we observed large suppression for our slight downshift of pitch suggests two possibilities: The 0.3 semitone pitch-shift may have indeed matched more closely the participants' subjective perception of their own speech and thus the prediction of the forward model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This analog output was fed to a digital signal processor (Ultraharmonizer 7000, Eventide, Inc., Little Ferry, New Jersey, USA) that, when so directed, would lower the pitch of the incoming speech by two semitones. When not lowering the pitch by two semitones, the Ultraharmonizer lowered the pitch of the incoming speech by 0.3 semitones, in order to make the speech fed back to the participant sound like they were hearing their own voice [10] (bone conduction causes speakers to hear their own speech with low frequencies more emphasized than what others hear [11]). …”

Section: The Audio Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetoencephalographic evidence for a precise forward model in speech production

Heinks-Maldonado

Nagarajan²,

Houde³

2006

NeuroReport

165

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography studies have shown that auditory cortical responses to self-produced speech are attenuated when compared with responses to tape-recorded speech, but that this attenuation disappears if auditory feedback is altered. These results suggest that auditory feedback during speaking is processed by comparing the feedback with its internal prediction. The present study used magnetoencephalography to investigate the precision of this matching process. Auditory responses to speech feedback were recorded under altered feedback conditions. During speech production, the M100 amplitude was maximally reduced to the participants' own unaltered voice feedback, relative to pitch-shifted and alien speech feed back. This suggests that the feedback comparison process may be very precise, allowing the auditory system to distinguish between internal and external sources of auditory information.Keywords altered feedback; efference copy; magnetoencephalography; speech production Theoretical backgroundData from a number of experiments suggest that the central nervous system processes sensory feedback from motor acts by comparing the feedback with a prediction of that feedback. This prediction, or corollary discharge, is the output of an internal (forward) model that maps motor commands (efference copy) to their expected sensory consequences. If feedback matches the prediction, the sensory response is suppressed. Electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings have shown that auditory cortical responses to self-produced speech are attenuated when compared with responses to tape-recorded speech [1][2][3][4][5]. Similar phenomena are seen in the somatosensory system, where behavioral studies (e.g. [6]) provide evidence for a precise forward model in which sensory stimulation has to correspond accurately to the movement producing it in

show abstract

“…In addition, because we always hear our own voice through air and bone, the recorded voice does not sound the same as the perceived voice. Therefore, the recorded voices were filtered to make them sound as similar as possible to the perceived voice, following the method described by Shuster and Durant [8]. The participants were instructed to repeat (1) and (2) until they were fully satisfied.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%