Sensory Processing: Advances in Understanding Structure and Function of Pitch-Shifted Auditory Feedback in Voice Control

Charles R Larson; Donald A Robin; Charles R Larson; Donald A Robin

doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.22

AIMS Neuroscience

2016, Volume 3, Issue 1: 22-39. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.22

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Recurring Topics

Sensory Processing: Advances in Understanding Structure and Function of Pitch-Shifted Auditory Feedback in Voice Control

Charles R Larson ^{1
,
,},
Donald A Robin ²

1.
Dept. of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
2.
Research Imaging Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio

Received: 11 November 2015 Accepted: 26 January 2016 Published: 06 February 2016

The pitch-shift paradigm has become a widely used method for studying the role of voice pitch auditory feedback in voice control. This paradigm introduces small, brief pitch shifts in voice auditory feedback to vocalizing subjects. The perturbations trigger a reflexive mechanism that counteracts the change in pitch. The underlying mechanisms of the vocal responses are thought to reflect a negative feedback control system that is similar to constructs developed to explain other forms of motor control. Another use of this technique requires subjects to voluntarily change the pitch of their voice when they hear a pitch shift stimulus. Under these conditions, short latency responses are produced that change voice pitch to match that of the stimulus. The pitch-shift technique has been used with magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings, and has shown that at vocal onset there is normally a suppression of neural activity related to vocalization. However, if a pitch-shift is also presented at voice onset, there is a cancellation of this suppression, which has been interpreted to mean that one way in which a person distinguishes self-vocalization from vocalization of others is by a comparison of the intended voice and the actual voice. Studies of the pitch shift reflex in the fMRI environment show that the superior temporal gyrus (STG) plays an important role in the process of controlling voice F0 based on auditory feedback. Additional studies using fMRI for effective connectivity modeling show that the left and right STG play critical roles in correcting for an error in voice production. While both the left and right STG are involved in this process, a feedback loop develops between left and right STG during perturbations, in which the left to right connection becomes stronger, and a new negative right to left connection emerges along with the emergence of other feedback loops within the cortical network tested.
- Voice,
- Neural,
- pitch-shift,
- auditory feedback,
- EEG,
- fMRI
Citation: Charles R Larson, Donald A Robin. Sensory Processing: Advances in Understanding Structure and Function of Pitch-Shifted Auditory Feedback in Voice Control[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(1): 22-39. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.22

Related Papers:

Abstract

The pitch-shift paradigm has become a widely used method for studying the role of voice pitch auditory feedback in voice control. This paradigm introduces small, brief pitch shifts in voice auditory feedback to vocalizing subjects. The perturbations trigger a reflexive mechanism that counteracts the change in pitch. The underlying mechanisms of the vocal responses are thought to reflect a negative feedback control system that is similar to constructs developed to explain other forms of motor control. Another use of this technique requires subjects to voluntarily change the pitch of their voice when they hear a pitch shift stimulus. Under these conditions, short latency responses are produced that change voice pitch to match that of the stimulus. The pitch-shift technique has been used with magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings, and has shown that at vocal onset there is normally a suppression of neural activity related to vocalization. However, if a pitch-shift is also presented at voice onset, there is a cancellation of this suppression, which has been interpreted to mean that one way in which a person distinguishes self-vocalization from vocalization of others is by a comparison of the intended voice and the actual voice. Studies of the pitch shift reflex in the fMRI environment show that the superior temporal gyrus (STG) plays an important role in the process of controlling voice F0 based on auditory feedback. Additional studies using fMRI for effective connectivity modeling show that the left and right STG play critical roles in correcting for an error in voice production. While both the left and right STG are involved in this process, a feedback loop develops between left and right STG during perturbations, in which the left to right connection becomes stronger, and a new negative right to left connection emerges along with the emergence of other feedback loops within the cortical network tested.

References

[1]	Jurgens U (2009) The neural control of vocalization in mammals: A review. J Voice Foun. 23: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.07.005
[2]	Sherrington CS (1910) Flexion-reflex of the limb, crossed extension-reflex, and reflex stepping and standing. J Physiol 40: 28-121, PMC1533734. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1910.sp001362
[3]	Lombard E (1911) Le signe de l’évélation de la voix. Ann Mal Oreille Larynx 37: 101-119.
[4]	Fairbanks G (1955) Selective vocal effects on delayed auditory feedback. J Speech Hear Dis 20: 333-346. doi: 10.1044/jshd.2004.333
[5]	Elman JL (1981) Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions. J Acoust Soc Am 70: 45-50.
[6]	Burnett TA, Freedland MB, Larson CR, et al. (1998) Voice F0 Responses to Manipulations in Pitch Feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 103: 3153-3161.
[7]	Zarate JM, Zatorre RJ (2008) Experience-dependent neural substrates involved in vocal pitch regulation during singing. NeuroImage 40: 1871-1887. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.026
[8]	Liu H, Behroozmand R, Bove M, et al.(2011) Laryngeal electromyographic responses to perturbations in voice pitch auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 129: 3946-3954, 3135150.
[9]	Liu H, Larson CR (2007) Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F0 level on the pitch-shift reflex. J Acoust Soc Am 122: 3671-3677.
[10]	Xu Y, Larson C, Bauer J, et al. (2004) Compensation for pitch-shifted auditory feedback during the production of Mandarin tone sequences. J Acoust Soc Am 116: 1168-1178.
[11]	Chen SH, Liu H, Xu Y, et al. (2007) Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted voice feedback during English speech. J Acoust Soc Am 121: 1157-1163.
[12]	Sanes JN, Evarts EE (1983) Effects of perturbation on accuracy of arm movements. J Neurosci 3: 977-986.
[13]	Abbs JH, Gracco VL (1984) Control of complex motor gestures: orofacial muscle responses to load perturbations of lip during speech. J Neurophysiology51: 705-723.
[14]	Kelso JAS, Tuller B, Vatikiotis-Bateson E, et al. (1984) Functionally specific articulatory cooperation following jaw perturbations during speech: Evidence for coordinative structures. J Expe Psy-Hum Percep. Perform 10: 812-832. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.10.6.812
[15]	Cole KJ, Abbs JH (1988) Grip force adjustments evoked by load force perturbations of a grasped object. J Neurophysiology 60: 1513-1522.
[16]	Baum SR, McFarland DH, Diab M (1996) Compensation to articulatory perturbation: Perceptual data. J Acoust Soc Am 99: 3791-3794.
[17]	Hain TC, Burnett TA, Kiran S, et al. (2000) Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex. Expe Brain Res 130: 133-141. doi: 10.1007/s002219900237
[18]	Houde JF, Nagarajan SS, Sekihara K, et al. (2002) Modulation of the auditory cortex during speech: An MEG study. J Cog Neurosci 14: 1125-1138.
[19]	Liu H, Behroozmand R, Bove M, et al. (2011) Laryngeal electromyographic responses to perturbations in voice pitch auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 129: 3946-354, 3135150. doi: 10.1121/1.3575593
[20]	Hain TC, Burnett TA, Larson CR,et al. (2001) Effects of delayed auditory feedback (DAF) on the pitch-shift reflex. J Acoust Soc Am 109: 2146-2152.
[21]	Larson CR, Burnett TA, Bauer JJ, et al. (2001) Comparisons of voice F₀ responses to pitch-shift onset and offset conditions. J Acoust Soc Am 110: 2845-2848.
[22]	Larson CR, Burnett TA, Kiran S, et al. (2000) .ffects of pitch-shift onset velocity on voice F0 responses. J Acoust Soc Am 107: 559-564.
[23]	Larson CR, Liu H, Behroozmand R, et al. (2008) Laryngeal muscle responses to voice auditory feedback perturbations, in International Conference on Voice Physiology and Biomechanics.2008: Tampere, Finland.
[24]	Larson CR, Sun J, Hain TC (2007) Effects of simultaneous perturbations of voice pitch and loudness feedback on voice F0 and amplitude control. J Acoust Soc Am 121: 2862-2872.
[25]	Liu H, Xu Y, Larson CR, et al. (2009) Attenuation of vocal responses to pitch perturbations during Mandarin speech. J Acoust Soc Am 125: 2299-306, 2677266.
[26]	Patel S, Nishimura C, Lodhavia A, et al. (2014) Voice control during voluntary responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 135: 3036-3044.
[27]	Burkard RF, Eggermont JJ, Don M (2007) Auditory Evoked Potentials. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. 731.
[28]	Behroozmand R, Liu H, Larson CR, et al. (2011) Time-dependent neural processing of auditory feedback during voice pitch error detection. J Cogn Neurosci 23: 1205-1217, 3268676. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21447
[29]	Heinks-Maldonado TH, Nagarajan SS, Houde JF, et al. (2006) Magnetoencephalographic evidence for a precise forward model in speech production. Neuroreport 17: 1375-1379. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000233102.43526.e9
[30]	Houde JF, Jordan MI (2002) Sensorimotor adaptation of speech I: Compensation and adaptation. J Speech Lan Hearing Res 45: 295-310. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/023)
[31]	Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (2014) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269: 1880-1882.
[32]	Behroozmand R, Liu H, Larson CR (2011) Time-dependent neural processing of auditory feedback during voice pitch error detection. J Cogn Neurosci 23: 1205-1217, 3268676. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21447
[33]	Heinks-Maldonado TH, Mathalon DH, Houde JF, et al. (2007) Relationship of imprecise corollary discharge in schizophrenia to auditory hallucinations. Arch General Psychiatry 64: 286-296. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.3.286
[34]	Behroozmand R, Karvelis L, Liu H, et al. (2009) Vocalization-induced enhancement of the auditory cortex responsiveness during voice F0 feedback perturbation. Clin Neurophysiol 120: 1303-1312, 2710429. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.04.022
[35]	Hawco CS, Jones JA, Ferretti TR, et al. (2009) ERP correlates of online monitoring of auditory feedback during vocalization. Psychophysiology.
[36]	Scheerer NE, Behich J, Liu H, et al. (2013) ERP correlates of the magnitude of pitch errors detected in the human voice. Neuroscience 240: 176-185. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.02.054
[37]	Eliades SJ, Wang X (2008) Neural substrates of vocalization feedback monitoring in primate auditory cortex. Nature 453: 1102-1106. doi: 10.1038/nature06910
[38]	Behroozmand R, Korzyukov O, Larson CR (2011) Effects of voice harmonic complexity on ERP responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback. Clin Neurophysiol 122: 2408-2417, 3189443. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.04.019
[39]	Belin P, Zatorre RJ (2003) Adaptation to speaker's voice in right anterior temporal lobe. Neuroreport14: 2105-2109.
[40]	Belin P, Zatorre RJ, Ahad P (2002) Human temporal-lobe response to vocal sounds. Brain Research. Cog Brain Res 13: 17-26. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00084-2
[41]	Fecteau S, Armony JL, Joanette Y, et al. (2004) Is voice processing species-specific in human auditory cortex?.An fMRI study. NeuroImage 23: p. 840-848.
[42]	Fecteau S, Armony JL, Joanette Y, et al. (2005) Sensitivity to voice in human prefrontal cortex. J Neurophysiology 94: 2251-2254. doi: 10.1152/jn.00329.2005
[43]	Greenlee J, Jackson AW, Chen F, et al. (2011) Human auditory cortical activation during self-vocalization. PLOS One6: 1-15, PMC3135150.
[44]	Greenlee JD, Behroozmand R, Larson CR, et al. (2013) Sensory-motor interactions for vocal pitch monitoring in non-primary human auditory cortex. PLoS One 8: e60783, 3620048.
[45]	Jones SJ (2003) Sensitivity of human auditory evoked potentials to the harmonicity of complex tones: evidence for dissociated cortical processes of spectral and periodicity analysis. Expe Brain Res 150: 506-514.
[46]	Liu H, Behroozmand R, Larson CR(2010) Enhanced neural responses to self-triggered voice pitch feedback perturbations. NeuroReport 21: 527-531.
[47]	Parkinson AL, Flagmeier SG, Manes JL, et al. (2012) Understanding the neural mechanisms involved in sensory control of voice production. Neuroimage61: p. 314-322, 3342468.
[48]	Zarate JM, Zatorre RJ (2005) .eural substrates governing audiovocal integration for vocal pitch regulation in singing. An New York Aca.Sci.1060: 404-408.
[49]	Toyomura A, Koyama S, Miyamaoto T, et al. (2007) Neural correlates of auditory feedback control in human. Neuroscience 146: 499-503. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.02.023
[50]	Brown S, Ngan E, Liotti M (2008) A larynx area in the human motor cortex. Cerebral Cortex .18: 837-845.
[51]	Behroozmand R, Shebek R, Hansen DR, et al. (2015) Sensory-motor networks involved in speech production and motor control: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 109: 418-428, 4339397. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.040
[52]	Zarate JM, Wood S, Zatorre RJ (2010) Neural networks involved in voluntary and involuntary vocal pitch regulation in experienced singers. Neuropsychologia 48: p. 607-618.
[53]	Friston KJ (1994) Functional and Effective Connectivity in Neuroimaging: A Synthesis. Hum Brain Map 2: p. 56-78.
[54]	Kiebel SJ, David O, Friston KJ (2006) Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses in EEG/MEG with lead field parameterization. Neuroimage 30: 1273-1284. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.055
[55]	Flagmeier SG, Ray KL, Parkinson AL, et al. (2014) The neural changes in connectivity of the voice network during voice pitch perturbation. Brain Lang132C: 7-13.
[56]	Parkinson AL, Behroozmand R, Ibrahim N, et al. (2014) Effective connectivity associated with auditory error detection in musicians with absolute pitch. Front Neurosci 8: 1-9, PMC3942878.
[57]	Parkinson AL, Korzyukov O, Larson CR, et al. (2013) Modulation of effective connectivity during vocalization with perturbed auditory feedback. Neuropsychologia 51: 1471-1480, 3704150. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.05.002
[58]	New AB, Robin DA, Parkinson AL, et al.(2015) The intrinsic resting state voice network in Parkinson's disease. Hum Brain Mapp 36(5): 1951-1962.
[59]	Duffy JR (1995) Motor Speech Disorders. St. Louis: Mosby. 467.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)