View in EDS PDF Full Text

Auditory-Motor Perturbations of Voice Fundamental Frequency: Feedback Delay and Amplification.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Auditory-Motor Perturbations of Voice Fundamental Frequency: Feedback Delay and Amplification.
Authors: Weerathunge, Hasini R.1 hasiniw@bu.edu, Abur, Defne2, Enos, Nicole M.1,3, Brown, Katherine M.2, Stepp, Cara E.1,2,4
Source: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Sep2020, Vol. 63 Issue 9, p2846-2860. 15p. 1 Diagram, 3 Charts, 4 Graphs.
Subject Terms: *Motor ability, *Auditory perception, *Physiological control systems, *Computer software, *Data analysis, Voice frequency, Feedback control systems, Wave amplification, Acoustic reflex, Physiological adaptation, Analysis of variance, Hearing levels, Paradigms (Social sciences), Research funding, Signal processing, Statistics, Time, Transducers, Human voice, Repeated measures design, Hearing protection, Data analysis software, One-way analysis of variance
Abstract: Purpose: Gradual and sudden perturbations of vocal fundamental frequency (fo), also known as adaptive and reflexive fo perturbations, are techniques to study the influence of auditory feedback on voice fo control mechanisms. Previous vocal fo perturbations have incorporated varied setup-specific feedback delays and amplifications. Here, we investigated the effects of feedback delays (10–100 ms) and amplifications on both adaptive and reflexive fo perturbation paradigms, encapsulating the variability in equipment-specific delays (3–45 ms) and amplifications utilized in previous experiments. Method: Responses to adaptive and reflexive fo perturbations were recorded in 24 typical speakers for four delay conditions (10, 40, 70, and 100 ms) or three amplification conditions (−10, +5, and +10 dB relative to microphone) in a counterbalanced order. Repeatedmeasures analyses of variance were carried out on the magnitude of fo responses to determine the effect of feedback condition. Results: There was a statistically significant effect of the level of auditory feedback amplification on the response magnitude during adaptive fo perturbations, driven by the difference between +10- and −10-dB amplification conditions (hold phase difference: M = 38.3 cents, SD = 51.2 cents; after-effect phase: M = 66.1 cents, SD = 84.6 cents). No other statistically significant effects of condition were found for either paradigm. Conclusions: Experimental equipment delays below 100 ms in behavioral paradigms do not affect the results of fo perturbation paradigms. As there is no statistically significant difference between the response magnitudes elicited by +5- and +10-dB auditory amplification conditions, this study is a confirmation that an auditory feedback amplification of +5 dB relative to microphone is sufficient to elicit robust compensatory responses for fo perturbation paradigms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Purpose: Gradual and sudden perturbations of vocal fundamental frequency (fo), also known as adaptive and reflexive fo perturbations, are techniques to study the influence of auditory feedback on voice fo control mechanisms. Previous vocal fo perturbations have incorporated varied setup-specific feedback delays and amplifications. Here, we investigated the effects of feedback delays (10–100 ms) and amplifications on both adaptive and reflexive fo perturbation paradigms, encapsulating the variability in equipment-specific delays (3–45 ms) and amplifications utilized in previous experiments. Method: Responses to adaptive and reflexive fo perturbations were recorded in 24 typical speakers for four delay conditions (10, 40, 70, and 100 ms) or three amplification conditions (−10, +5, and +10 dB relative to microphone) in a counterbalanced order. Repeatedmeasures analyses of variance were carried out on the magnitude of fo responses to determine the effect of feedback condition. Results: There was a statistically significant effect of the level of auditory feedback amplification on the response magnitude during adaptive fo perturbations, driven by the difference between +10- and −10-dB amplification conditions (hold phase difference: M = 38.3 cents, SD = 51.2 cents; after-effect phase: M = 66.1 cents, SD = 84.6 cents). No other statistically significant effects of condition were found for either paradigm. Conclusions: Experimental equipment delays below 100 ms in behavioral paradigms do not affect the results of fo perturbation paradigms. As there is no statistically significant difference between the response magnitudes elicited by +5- and +10-dB auditory amplification conditions, this study is a confirmation that an auditory feedback amplification of +5 dB relative to microphone is sufficient to elicit robust compensatory responses for fo perturbation paradigms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10924388
DOI:10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00407