Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that when phonating subjects hear their voice pitch feedback shift upward or downward, they respond with a change in voice fundamental frequency (F0) output. Three experiments were performed to improve our understanding of this response and to explore the effects of different stimulus variables on voice F0 responses to pitch-shift stimuli. In experiment 1, it was found that neither the absolute level of feedback intensity nor the presence of pink masking noise significantly affect magnitude or latency of the voice F0 response. In experiment 2, changes in stimulus magnitude led to no systematic differences in response magnitudes or latencies. However, as stimulus magnitude was increased from 25 to 300 cents, the proportion of responses that changed in the direction opposite that of the stimulus ("opposing" response) decreased. A corresponding increase was observed in the proportion of same direction responses ("following" response). In experiment 3, increases in pitch-shift stimulus durations from 20 to 100 ms led to no differences in the F0 response. Durations between 100 and 500 ms led to longer duration voice F0 responses with greater response magnitude, and suggested the existence of a second F0 response with a longer latency than the first.

Dynamics of jamming avoidance in echolocating bats

“…Also, when presented via earphones with a fed-back version of their speech whose pitch is shifted in real time, most humans try to correct their pitch in the opposite direction, to make the auditory input 'sound right'; an effect known as the 'audio-vocal reflex' (e.g. Burnett et al 1998). Thus, auditory input can affect vocal output, both in echolocating bats and in humans.…”

Central nervous system control of the laryngeal muscles in humans

“…The authors proposed that intonation patterns "appeared to be programmed into the speech production system at a "high level" independent of peripheral monitoring" (Mallard et al, 1978). The pitch shift studies by Larson and coworkers (Burnett et al, 1998;Larson et al, 2000) suggest than even when intonation patterns are pre-programmed, a perturbation in auditory feedback can have an immediate effect on pitch control presumably via changes in laryngeal muscle activity. It remains to be seen to what degree perturbations affecting mucosal sensation can alter laryngeal control in humans.…”

Sensory feedback control of mammalian vocalizations

“…In humans, the reflexive control of speech loudness appears to follow a time course similar to the response to pitch-shifted feedback, or the pitch-shift reflex (PSR) [4,9,49,72,73,136]. Speakers exhibit a reflexive compensatory response to perceived shifts in voice pitch which occurs with a latency of approximately 130 ms and, again, appears not to be under volitional control [4,9,72,73,136].…”

“…Speakers exhibit a reflexive compensatory response to perceived shifts in voice pitch which occurs with a latency of approximately 130 ms and, again, appears not to be under volitional control [4,9,72,73,136]. In a related series of experiments [52], when speakers were presented with feedback in which the formant frequency of specific vowels was electronically shifted within a subset of specific words, speakers subsequently made compensatory changes in the production of the pitch-shifted vowels not only in the test words containing the altered vowel, but also in other words containing the same vowel.…”

“…To a large extent these similarities extend to other vertebrates, notably including songbirds [58], chorusing frogs [7], and even fish [35,67]. Ultimately the neural substrate for human speech will perhaps be distinguished by its more elaborate and sophisticated cortical circuitry [88], but surprisingly, many of the normal ways in which human speech responds to sensory feedback, such as in the case of the Lombard effect [76] or the response to pitch-shifted feedback [9,23], have been documented in a variety of other animals [54,113,116,135]. This fact illustrates the value of exploring the comparative neurophysiology of vocal motor patterning.…”