Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 7, pp 1963–1969 | Cite as

Perceptual manifestations of auditory modulation during speech planning

  • Yaser Merrikhi
  • Reza Ebrahimpour
  • Ayoub DaliriEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Recent studies have provided electrophysiological evidence that the auditory system’s response to externally generated auditory stimuli during speech planning is modulated in comparison to its responses to identical stimuli during no-speaking control conditions. In this study, we examined whether such neural modulations during speech planning result in measurable perceptual modulations. In a two-interval forced choice intensity discrimination paradigm, participants were asked to judge the intensity of a standard tone (with constant intensity), played during a fixation period, relative to the intensity of a comparison tone (with varying intensity), played during speech planning or during no-speaking conditions (silent reading and passive listening). Psychometric functions were fitted to participants’ responses in each condition; psychometric functions were used to calculate the point of subjective equality (as a measure of perceptual threshold) and the slope of the psychometric functions (as a measure of perceptual uncertainty). We found that the point of subjective equality in the speaking condition was statistically significantly larger than that in the no-speaking conditions. In addition, slope values in the speaking and listening conditions were statistically significantly smaller than slope value in the silent reading condition. Together, these results suggest that previously reported electrophysiological modulations of the auditory system during speech planning may have perceptual manifestations, such as increases in perceptual thresholds and uncertainty of perceptual thresholds in an intensity discrimination task.

Keywords

Auditory modulation Perception Sensorimotor integration Speech planning Speech 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Blakemore SJ, Frith CD, Wolpert DM (1999) Spatio-temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli. J Cogn Neurosci 11:551–559.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563607 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakemore SJ, Wolpert D, Frith C (2000) Why canʼt you tickle yourself? Neuroreport 11:R11–R16.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200008030-00002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman CE (1994) Active versus passive touch: factors influencing the transmission of somatosensory signals to primary somatosensory cortex. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 72:558–570.  https://doi.org/10.1139/y94-080 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Daliri A, Max L (2015a) Modulation of auditory processing during speech movement planning is limited in adults who stutter. Brain Lang 143:59–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Daliri A, Max L (2015b) Electrophysiological evidence for a general auditory prediction deficit in adults who stutter. Brain Lang 150:37–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.08.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Daliri A, Max L (2016) Modulation of auditory responses to speech vs. nonspeech stimuli during speech movement planning. Front Hum Neurosci 10:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daliri A, Max L (2018) Stuttering adults’ lack of pre-speech auditory modulation normalizes when speaking with delayed auditory feedback. Cortex 99:55–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.10.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Desantis A, Weiss C, Schütz-Bosbach S, Waszak F (2012) Believing and perceiving: Authorship belief modulates sensory attenuation. PLoS One 7:e37959.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037959 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Eliades SJ, Wang X (2002) Sensory-motor interaction in the primate auditory cortex during self-initiated vocalizations. J Neurophysiol 89:2194–2207.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00627.2002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eliades SJ, Wang X (2005) Dynamics of auditory–vocal interaction in monkey auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 15:1510–1523.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eliades SJ, Wang X (2008) Neural substrates of vocalization feedback monitoring in primate auditory cortex. Nature 453:1102–1106.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06910 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eliades SJ, Wang X (2017) Contributions of sensory tuning to auditory-vocal interactions in marmoset auditory cortex. Hear Res 348:98–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.03.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford JM, Mathalon DH, Kalba S et al (2001) Cortical responsiveness during talking and listening in schizophrenia: an event-related brain potential study. Biol Psychiatry 50:540–549.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01166-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenlee JDW, Jackson AW, Chen F et al (2011) Human auditory cortical activation during self-vocalization. PLoS One 6:e14744.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014744 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Guenther FH (2006) Cortical interactions underlying the production of speech sounds. J Commun Disord 39(5):350–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hickok G (2012) The cortical organization of speech processing: Feedback control and predictive coding the context of a dual-stream model. J Commun Disord 45(6):393–402CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hickok G, Houde J, Rong F (2011) Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: computational basis and neural organization. Neuron 69:407–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.019 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Houde JF, Chang EF (2015) The cortical computations underlying feedback control in vocal production. Curr Opin Neurobiol 33:174–181CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Houde JF, Nagarajan SS, Sekihara K, Merzenich MM (2002) Modulation of the auditory cortex during speech: an MEG study. J Cogn Neurosci 14:1125–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902760807140 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Liotti Mario M, Ingham JC, Takai O et al (2010) Spatiotemporal dynamics of speech sound perception in chronic developmental stuttering. Brain Lang 115:141–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Max L, Onghena P (1999) Some issues in the statistical analysis of completely randomized and repeated measures designs for speech, language, and hearing research. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42:261–270.  https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4202.261 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mock JR, Foundas AL, Golob EJ (2011) Modulation of sensory and motor cortex activity during speech preparation. Eur J Neurosci 33:1001–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07585.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mock JR, Foundas AL, Golob EJ (2015) Speech preparation in adults with persistent developmental stuttering. Brain Lang 149:97–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.05.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Numminen J, Curio G, Neuloh G et al (1998) Speaking modifies utterance-related activity of the human auditory cortex. Neuroimage 7:S48Google Scholar
  25. Perkell JS (2012) Movement goals and feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech production. J Neurolinguistics 25:382–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Purcell DW, Munhall KG (2006) Adaptive control of vowel formant frequency: Evidence from real-time formant manipulation. J Acoust Soc Am 120(2):966–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sato A (2008) Action observation modulates auditory perception of the consequence of others’ actions. Conscious Cogn 17:1219–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.01.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sato A (2009) Both motor prediction and conceptual congruency between preview and action-effect contribute to explicit judgment of agency. Cognition 110:74–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmiedek F, Oberauer K, Wilhelm O et al (2007) Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. J Exp Psychol Gen 136:414–429.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.414 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schröger E, Kotz SA, SanMiguel I (2015a) Bridging prediction and attention in current research on perception and action. Brain Res 1626:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.08.037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Schröger E, Marzecová A, SanMiguel I (2015b) Attention and prediction in human audition: a lesson from cognitive psychophysiology. Eur J Neurosci 41:641–664.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12816 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Schütz-Bosbach S, Prinz W (2007) Perceptual resonance: action-induced modulation of perception. Trends Cogn Sci 11:349–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Seki K, Perlmutter SI, Fetz EE (2003) Sensory input to primate spinal cord is presynaptically inhibited during voluntary movement. Nat Neurosci 6:1309–1316.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1154 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Timm J, SanMiguel I, Saupe K, Schröger E (2013) The N1-suppression effect for self-initiated sounds is independent of attention. BMC Neurosci 14:2.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-14-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Towle VL, Yoon HA, Castelle M et al (2008) ECoG gamma activity during a language task: differentiating expressive and receptive speech areas. Brain 131:2013–2027.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn147 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Villacorta VM, Perkell JS, Guenther FH (2007) Sensorimotor adaptation to feedback perturbations of vowel acoustics and its relation to perception. J Acoust Soc Am 122:2306–2319.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2773966 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. von Bastian CC, Oberauer K (2014) Effects and mechanisms of working memory training: a review. Psychol Res 78:803–820.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0524-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waszak F, Cardoso-Leite P, Hughes G (2012) Action effect anticipation: Neurophysiological basis and functional consequences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:943–959.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Weiskrantz L, Elliott J, Darlington C (1971) Preliminary observations on tickling oneself. Nature 230:598–599.  https://doi.org/10.1038/230598a0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiss C, Herwig A, Schütz-Bosbach S (2011a) The self in action effects: selective attenuation of self-generated sounds. Cognition 121:207–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss C, Herwig A, Schütz-Bosbach S (2011b) The self in social interactions: sensory attenuation of auditory action effects is stronger in interactions with others. PLoS One 6:e22723.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022723 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams SR, Shenasa J, Chapman CE (1998) Time course and magnitude of movement-related gating of tactile detection in humans. I. Importance of stimulus location. J Neurophysiol 79:947–963.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00527.2001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IPM-Institute for Research in Fundamental SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Speech and Hearing ScienceArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations