Abstract
Purpose
Speech production is a complex motor task involving multiple subsystems. The relationships between these subsystems need to be comprehensively investigated to understand the underlying mechanisms of speech production. The goal of this paper is to examine the differential contributions of 1) auditory and somatosensory feedback control mechanisms, and 2) laryngeal and articulatory speech production subsystems on speech motor control at an individual speaker level using altered auditory and somatosensory feedback paradigms.
Methods
Twenty young adults completed speaking tasks in which sudden and unpredictable auditory and physical perturbations were applied to the laryngeal and articulatory speech production subsystems. Auditory perturbations were applied to laryngeal or articulatory acoustic features of speech. Physical perturbations were applied to the larynx and the jaw. Pearson-product moment correlation coefficients were calculated between 1) auditory and somatosensory reflexive responses to investigate relationships between auditory and somatosensory feedback control mechanisms, and 2) laryngeal and articulatory reflexive responses as well as acuity measures to investigate the relationship between auditory-motor features of laryngeal and articulatory subsystems.
Results
No statistically significant correlations were found concerning the relationships between auditory and somatosensory feedback. No statistically significant correlations were found between auditory-motor features in the laryngeal and articulatory control subsystems.
Conclusion
Results suggest that the laryngeal and articulatory speech production subsystems operate with differential auditory and somatosensory feedback control mechanisms. The outcomes suggest that current models of speech motor control should consider decoupling laryngeal and articulatory domains to better model speech motor control processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability statement
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
A script error caused only 48 trials to be perturbed in all auditory fo reflexive paradigms across all participants, instead of the expected 54 perturbed trials. The auditory F1 reflexive paradigm contained the 54 perturbed trials as expected.
100 cents = 1 ST.
The first formant value of the vowel produced (i.e. /ε/) was shifted by + 30% (i.e., towards /ӕ/) for F1 shift up perturbations and -30% (i.e., towards /I/) for F1 shift down perturbations.
\({f}_{{o}_{normalized}}\left(cent\right)=1200*{log}_{2}\left(\frac{{f}_{{o}_{raw}}}{{f}_{{o}_{avg baseline}}}\right) ,\) \({F}_{{1}_{normalized}}(percent)=100*\left(\frac{{F}_{{1}_{raw}}- {F}_{{1}_{avg baseline}}}{{F}_{{1}_{avg baseline}}}\right)\)
All control trials in reflexive paradigms were baseline normalized similar to perturbed trials. For control trials, baseline period encompassed 400 – 500 ms from vowel onset and the total control trial trajectory encompassed 400 – 1000 ms from vowel onset.
\(Compesatory\, Index\, \left(CI\right)=\left(\frac{Mean\, reflexive\, response\, magnitude}{Maximum\, perturbation}\right)\)
References
Abbs JH, Gracco VL, Cole KJ (1984) Control of multimovement coordination: sensorimotor mechanisms in speech motor programming. J Mot Behav 16(2):195–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1984.10735318
Abur D, Subaciute A, Daliri A, Lester-Smith RA, Lupiani AA, Cilento D, Enos NM, Weerathunge HR, Tardif MC, Stepp CE (2021) Feedback and feedforward auditory-motor processes for voice and articulation in parkinson’s disease. J Speech Lang Hear Res 64(12):4682–4694. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00153
American Speech Language Hearing Association. (2005). Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. https://www.asha.org/policy/gl2005-00014/
Behroozmand R, Korzyukov O, Sattler L, Larson CR (2012) Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control. J Acoust Soc Am 132(4):2468–2477. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4746984
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.14). https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
Burk MH, Wiley TL (2004) Continuous versus pulsed tones in audiometry. Am J Audiol 13(1):54–61. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2004/008)
Burnett TA, Freedland MB, Larson CR, Hain TC (1998) Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 103(6):3153–3161. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423073
Burnett TA, Larson CR (2002) Early pitch-shift response is active in both steady and dynamic voice pitch control. J Acoust Soc Ame 112(3):1058–1063
Burnett TA, Senner JE, Larson CR (1997) Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: a preliminary study. J Voice 11(2):202–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-1997(97)80079-3
Cai, S., Boucek, M., Ghosh, S. S., Guenther, F. H., & Perkell, J. S. (2008). A system for online dynamic perturbation of formant trajectories and results from perturbations of the Mandarin triphthong/iau. Proceedings of the 8th ISSP 65–68.
Chen SH, Liu H, Xu Y, Larson CR (2007) Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted voice feedback during English speech. J Acoust Soc Am 121(2):1157–1163. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2404624
Chen X, Zhu X, Wang EQ, Chen L, Li W, Chen Z, Liu H (2013) Sensorimotor control of vocal pitch production in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Res 1527:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2013.06.030
Colton, R. H., & Shearer, W. M. (1971). Hyoid position as a function of fundamental frequency in the modal and falsetto registers. State University of New York Upstate Medical Center.
Cowie, R., & Douglas-Cowie, E. (1992). Postlingually Acquired Deafness: Speech Deterioration and the Wider Consequences (Mouton de Gruyter, New York). Google Scholar, 304.
Dai H (1995) On measuring psychometric functions: a comparison of the constant-stimulus and adaptive up-down methods. J Acoust Soc Am 98(6):3135–3139. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.413802
Daliri A, Prokopenko RA, Max L (2013) Afferent and efferent aspects of mandibular sensorimotor control in adults who stutter. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56(6):1774–1788. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0134)
Elman JL (1981a) Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions. J Acoust Soc Am 70(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.386580
Elman JL (1981b) Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions. J Acoust Soc Am 70(1):45–50
Feng Y, Gracco VL, Max L (2011) Integration of auditory and somatosensory error signals in the neural control of speech movements. J Neurophysiol 106(2):667–679. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00638.2010
Franken MK, Acheson DJ, McQueen JM, Hagoort P, Eisner F (2018) Opposing and following responses in sensorimotor speech control: why responses go both ways. Psychon Bull Rev 25(4):1458–1467. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1494-x
M A GP (1998) Forced-choice staircases with fixed step sizes: asymptotic and small-sample properties. Vision Res 38(12):1861–1881. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00340-4
Gerrits, E., & Schouten, B. (1998). Categorical perception of vowels. Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing
Gerrits E, Schouten ME (2004) Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Percept Psychophys 66(3):363–376
Ghosh SS, Matthies ML, Maas E, Hanson A, Tiede M, Menard L, Guenther FH, Lane H, Perkell JS (2010) An investigation of the relation between sibilant production and somatosensory and auditory acuity. J Acoust Soc Am 128(5):3079–3087. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3493430
Golfinopoulos E, Tourville JA, Bohland JW, Ghosh SS, Nieto-Castanon A, Guenther FH (2011) fMRI investigation of unexpected somatosensory feedback perturbation during speech. Neuroimage 55(3):1324–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.065
Gritsyk O, Kabakoff H, Li JJ, Ayala S, Shiller DM, McAllister T (2021) Toward an index of oral somatosensory acuity: comparison of three measures in adults. Perspect ASHA Spec Interes Groups 6(2):500–512. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_persp-20-00218
Guenther FH (1994) A neural network model of speech acquisition and motor equivalent speech production. Biol Cybern 72(1):43–53
Guenther FH (2016) Neural control of speech. Mit Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10471.001.0001
Hain TC, Burnett TA, Kiran S, Larson CR, Singh S, Kenney MK (2000) Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex. Exp Brain Res 130(2):133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002219900237
Hammer MJ (2009) Design of a new somatosensory stimulus delivery device for measuring laryngeal mechanosensory detection thresholds in humans. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56(4):1154–1159. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2008.2007968
Hammer MJ, Barlow SM (2010) Laryngeal somatosensory deficits in Parkinson’s disease: implications for speech respiratory and phonatory control. Exp Brain Res 201(3):401–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2048-2
Harel B, Cannizzaro M, Snyder PJ (2004) Variability in fundamental frequency during speech in prodromal and incipient Parkinson’s disease: a longitudinal case study. Brain Cogn 56(1):24–29
Heller Murray ES, Lupiani AA, Kolin KR, Segina RK, Stepp CE (2019) Pitch shifting with the commercially available eventide eclipse: intended and unintended changes to the speech signal. J Speech Lang Hear Res 62(7):2270–2279. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-18-0408
Hickok G (2012) Computational neuroanatomy of speech production. Nat Rev Neurosci 13(2):135–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3158
Honda K (1983) Relationship between pitch control and vowel articulation. Haskins Laboratori Status Rep Speech Res 73:269–282
Houde JF, Chang EF (2015) The cortical computations underlying feedback control in vocal production. Curr Opin Neurobiol 33:174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.04.006
Houde JF, Nagarajan SS (2011) Speech production as state feedback control. Front Hum Neurosci 5:82
Jones JA, Munhall KG (2000) Perceptual calibration of F0 production: evidence from feedback perturbation. J Acoust Soc Am 108(3):1246–1251. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1288414
Jones JA, Munhall KG (2002) The role of auditory feedback during phonation: studies of mandarin tone production. J Phon 30(3):303–320. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0160
Katseff S, Houde J, Johnson K (2012) Partial compensation for altered auditory feedback: a tradeoff with somatosensory feedback? Lang Speech 55:295–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911417802
Kewley-Port D, Watson CS (1994) Formant-frequency discrimination for isolated English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 95(1):485–496. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410024
Lametti DR, Nasir SM, Ostry DJ (2012) Sensory preference in speech production revealed by simultaneous alteration of auditory and somatosensory feedback. J Neurosci 32(27):9351–9358. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0404-12.2012
Lane H, Wozniak J, Matthies M, Svirsky M, Perkell J, O’Connell M, Manzella J (1997) Changes in sound pressure and fundamental frequency contours following changes in hearing status. J Acoust Soc Am 101(4):2244–2252. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418245
Larson CR, Altman KW, Liu H, Hain TC (2008) Interactions between auditory and somatosensory feedback for voice F 0 control. Exp Brain Res 187(4):613–621
Larson CR, Burnett TA, Bauer JJ, Kiran S, Hain TC (2001) Comparison of voice F0 responses to pitch-shift onset and offset conditions. J Acoust Soc Am 110(6):2845–2848. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1417527
Larson CR, Burnett TA, Kiran S, Hain TC (2000) Effects of pitch-shift velocity on voice Fo responses. J Acoust Soc Am 107(1):559–564. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428323
Lester-Smith RA, Daliri A, Enos N, Abur D, Lupiani AA, Letcher S, Stepp CE (2020) The relation of articulatory and vocal auditory-motor control in typical speakers. J Speech Lang Hear Res 63(11):3628–3642. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00192
Levitt, H. (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am,= 49(2) Suppl 2:467+. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5541744
Li W, Chen Z, Liu P, Zhang B, Huang D, Liu H (2013) Neurophysiological evidence of differential mechanisms involved in producing opposing and following responses to altered auditory feedback. Clin Neurophysiol 124(11):2161–2171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.04.340
Liu H, Auger J, Larson CR (2010a) Voice fundamental frequency modulates vocal response to pitch perturbations during english speech. J Acoust Soc Am 127(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3263897
Liu H, Larson CR (2007) Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F0 level on the pitch-shift reflex. J Acoust Soc Am 122(6):3671–3677. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2800254
Liu H, Wang EQ, Chen Z, Liu P, Larson CR, Huang D (2010b) Effect of tonal native language on voice fundamental frequency responses to pitch feedback perturbations during sustained vocalizations. J Acoust Soc Am 128(6):3739–3746. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3500675
Liu H, Wang EQ, Chen Z, Liu P, Larson CR, Huang D (2010c) Effect of tonal native language on voice fundamental frequency responses to pitch feedback perturbations during sustained vocalizations. J Acoust Soc Am 128(6):3739–3746
Liu P, Chen Z, Jones JA, Huang D, Liu H (2011) Auditory feedback control of vocal pitch during sustained vocalization: a cross-sectional study of adult aging. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022791
Loucks TM, Poletto CJ, Saxon KG, Ludlow CL (2005) Laryngeal muscle responses to mechanical displacement of the thyroid cartilage in humans. J Appl Physiol 99(3):922–930. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00402.2004
MacDonald EN, Munhall KG (2012) A preliminary study of individual responses to real-time pitch and formant perturbations. In: The Listening Talker: an interdisciplinary workshop on natural and synthetic modification of speech in response to listening conditions, pp 32–35
MacDonald EN, Purcell DW, Munhall KG (2011) Probing the independence of formant control using altered auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 129(2):955–965. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3531932
Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (2004) Detection theory: A user’s guide. Psychology press
Martin CD, Niziolek CA, Dunabeitia JA, Perez A, Hernandez D, Carreiras M, Houde JF (2018) Online adaptation to altered auditory feedback is predicted by auditory acuity and not by domain-general executive control resources. Front Hum Neurosci 12:91. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00091
McGill WJ, Goldberg JP (1968) Pure-tone intensity discrimination and energy detection. J Acoust Soc Am 44(2):576–581. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1911123
Midi I, Dogan M, Koseoglu M, Can G, Sehitoglu M, Gunal D (2008) Voice abnormalities and their relation with motor dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neurol Scand 117(1):26–34
Miller HE, Guenther FH (2021) Modelling speech motor programming and apraxia of speech in the DIVA/GODIVA neurocomputational framework. Aphasiology 35(4):424–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1765307
Miller N, Andrew S, Noble E, Walshe M (2011) Changing perceptions of self as a communicator in Parkinson’s disease: a longitudinal follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil 33(3):204–210
Mitsuya T, MacDonald EN, Munhall KG, Purcell DW (2015) Formant compensation for auditory feedback with English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 138(1):413–424. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4923154
Mollaei F, Shiller DM, Baum SR, Gracco VL (2016) Sep 1). Sensorimotor control of vocal pitch and formant frequencies in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Res 1646:269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.06.013
Mollaei F, Shiller DM, Baum SR, Gracco VL (2019) The relationship between speech perceptual discrimination and speech production in Parkinson’s disease. J Speech Lang Hear Res 62(12):4256–4268. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-18-0425
Munhall KG, MacDonald EN, Byrne SK, Johnsrude I (2009) Talkers alter vowel production in response to real-time formant perturbation even when instructed not to compensate. J Acoust Soc Am 125(1):384–390
Murray ESH, Stepp CE (2020) Relationships between vocal pitch perception and production: a developmental perspective. Sci Rep 10(1):1–10
Nasir SM, Ostry DJ (2006) Somatosensory precision in speech production. Curr Biol 16(19):1918–1923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.069
Parrell B, Agnew Z, Nagarajan S, Houde J, Ivry RB (2017) Impaired feedforward control and enhanced feedback control of speech in patients with cerebellar degeneration. J Neurosci 37(38):9249–9258. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3363-16.2017
Parrell B, Ramanarayanan V, Nagarajan S, Houde J (2019) The FACTS model of speech motor control: fusing state estimation and task-based control. PLoS Comput Biol 15(9):e1007321. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007321
Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T, Paul D, Svec JG, Hillman R (2018) Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American speech-language-hearing association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of Vocal Function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 27(3):887–905. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
Patel S, Nishimura C, Lodhavia A, Korzyukov O, Parkinson A, Robin DA, Larson CR (2014) Understanding the mechanisms underlying voluntary responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 135(5):3036–3044. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4870490
Perkell J, Matthies M, Lane H, Guenther F, Wilhelms-Tricarico R, Wozniak J, Guiod P (1997) Speech motor control: acoustic goals, saturation effects, auditory feedback and internal models. Speech Commun 22(2–3):227–250
Perkell, J. S. (1969) Physiology of speech production: Results and implications of a quantitative cineradiographic study MIT research monograph, No 53.
Perkell JS (2013) Five decades of research in speech motor control: what have we learned, and where should we go from here? J Speech Lang Hear Res 56(6):1857
Perkell JS, Cohen MH, Svirsky MA, Matthies ML, Garabieta I, Jackson MT (1992) Electromagnetic midsagittal articulometer systems for transducing speech articulatory movements. J Acoust Soc Am 92(6):3078–3096. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.404204
Perkell JS, Guenther FH, Lane H, Matthies ML, Perrier P, Vick J, Wilhelms-Tricarico R, Zandipour M (2000) A theory of speech motor control and supporting data from speakers with normal hearing and with profound hearing loss. J Phon 28(3):233–272. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2000.0116
Pisoni DB (1971) On the nature of categorical perception of speech sounds (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning)
Purcell, D., & Munhall, K. (2008) Weighting of auditory feedback across the English vowel space. Proceedings of the... International Seminar on Speech Production
Purcell DW, Munhall KG (2006a) Adaptive control of vowel formant frequency: evidence from real-time formant manipulation. J Acoust Soc Am 120(2):966–977. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2217714
Purcell DW, Munhall KG (2006b) Compensation following real-time manipulation of formants in isolated vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 119(4):2288–2297. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2173514
Reilly KJ, Dougherty KE (2013) The role of vowel perceptual cues in compensatory responses to perturbations of speech auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 134(2):1314–1323. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4812763
Romo R, Hernandez A, Salinas E, Brody CD, Zainos A, Lemus L, de Lafuente V, Luna R (2002) From sensation to action. Behav Brain Res 135(1–2):105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4328(02)00161-4
Ryan TA, Joiner BL, Ryan BF (2014) MinitabTM. Statistics Reference Online, Wiley Online library, Wiley StatsRef
Sapir S (1978) The motions of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage during changes in the voice fundamental frequency: A cinefluorographic pilot study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington
Sapir S, Baker KK, Larson CR, Ramig LO (2000) Short-latency changes in voice F0 and neck surface EMG induced by mechanical perturbations of the larynx during sustained vowel phonation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43(1):268–276. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4301.268
Sapir S, Campbell C, Larson C (1981) Effect of geniohyoid, cricothyroid and sternothyroid muscle stimulation on voice fundamental frequency of electrically elicited phonation in rhesus macaque. Laryngoscope 91(3):457–468. https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-198103000-00017
Scheerer NE, Jones JA (2012) The relationship between vocal accuracy and variability to the level of compensation to altered auditory feedback. Neurosci Lett 529(2):128–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.09.012
Skodda S, Grönheit W, Schlegel U (2012) Impairment of vowel articulation as a possible marker of disease progression in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 7(2):e32132
Smith DJ, Stepp C, Guenther FH, Kearney E (2020) Contributions of auditory and somatosensory feedback to vocal motor control. J Speech Lang Hear Res 63(7):2039–2053. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00296
Svirsky MA, Lane H, Perkell JS, Wozniak J (1992) Effects of short-term auditory deprivation on speech production in adult cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 92(3):1284–1300. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.403923
Terband H, Maassen B, Guenther FH, Brumberg J (2014) Auditory–motor interactions in pediatric motor speech disorders: neurocomputational modeling of disordered development. J Commun Disord 47:17–33
Tourville JA, Guenther FH (2011) The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Lang Cogn Process 26(7):952–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903498424
Tourville JA, Reilly KJ, Guenther FH (2008) Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech. Neuroimage 39(3):1429–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.054
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(4):2306–2319. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2773966
Weerathunge HR, Abur D, Enos NM, Brown KM, Stepp CE (2020) Auditory-motor perturbations of voice fundamental frequency: feedback delay and amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 63(9):2846–2860. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00407
Weerathunge HR, Alzamendi GA, Cler GJ, Guenther FH, Cara E, Stepp CE, Zañartu M (in press). LaDIVA: A neurocomputational model providing laryngeal motor control for speech acquisition and production. PLoS Comput Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010159
Weerathunge HR, Tomassi NE, Stepp CE (2022) What can altered auditory feedback paradigms tell us about vocal motor control in individuals with voice disorders? Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 7(3):959–976. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_PERSP-21-00195
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge Frank Guenther, Andrés F. Salazar-Gómez, and Manuel Díaz Cádiz for design and technical support related to the custom displacement device used to generate physical perturbations. We acknowledge Defne Abur for sharing expertise on formant perturbations, Dante Smith and Elaine Kearney for providing support in setting up laryngeal and jaw perturbation paradigms respectively, and Ashley Mcfarlane for assistance with data analysis. We would also like to thank Joseph Perkell for their critical insights on somatosensory perturbations.
Funding
This research was supported by grant R01 DC016270 (CES & FHG) and by a Graduate Fellow Award from the Rafik B. Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science and Engineering (HRW).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: CES Funding acquisition: CES Resources: CES Supervision: CES Data curation: HRW, DC Formal analysis: HRW, TV, MT Investigation: HRW, MT, DC. Methodology: HRW, CES Software: HRW Visualization: HRW, CES. Writing – original draft: HRW, TV, MT, DC, CES Writing – review & editing: HRW, CES.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Bill J Yates.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weerathunge, H.R., Voon, T., Tardif, M. et al. Auditory and somatosensory feedback mechanisms of laryngeal and articulatory speech motor control. Exp Brain Res 240, 2155–2173 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-022-06395-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-022-06395-7