Magnetoencephalographic evidence for a precise forward model in speech production
Open accessAbstract
Electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography studies have shown that auditory cortical responses to self-produced speech are attenuated when compared with responses to tape-recorded speech, but that this attenuation disappears if auditory feedback is altered. These results suggest that auditory feedback during speaking is processed by comparing the feedback with its internal prediction. The present study used magnetoencephalography to investigate the precision of this matching process. Auditory responses to speech feedback were recorded under altered feedback conditions. During speech production, the M100 amplitude was maximally reduced to the participants' own unaltered voice feedback, relative to pitch-shifted and alien speech feedback. This suggests that the feedback comparison process may be very precise, allowing the auditory system to distinguish between internal and external sources of auditory information.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The results of the inner speech experiment mirror previous studies which found sensory attenuation to overt speech to be reduced or eliminated if auditory feedback deviates from what would normally be expected.
“The results of the inner speech experiment mirror those of previous studies which have found sensory attenuation to overt speech to be reduced or eliminated if auditory feedback deviates from what would normally be expected; e.g., by pitch-shifting the feedback or providing foreign-language feedback (Heinks-Maldonado et al., 2006; Behroozmand and Larson, 2011; Behroozmand et al., 2011; Behroozmand”
From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Heinks-Maldonado et al., 2006
The Match versus Mismatch contrast in the overt speech experiment was identical to the corresponding contrast in the inner speech experiment.
“This result, which is consistent with numerous previous studies in the sensory attenuation literature (Heinks-Maldonado et al., 2006; Behroozmand and Larson, 2011; Behroozmand et al., 2011; Behroozmand et al., 2016; Larson and Robin, 2016), was identical to the corresponding contrast in the inner speech experiment, in which participants had to produce phonemes in inner, as opposed to overt, speech”
From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Heinks-Maldonado et al., 2006
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- [1]Numminen J, Curio G. Differential effects of overt, covert and replayed speech on vowel-evoked responses of the human auditory cortex. Neurosci Lett. 1999;272:29–32. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(99)00573-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [2]Numminen J, Salmelin R, Hari R. Subject's own speech reduces reactivity of the human auditory cortex. Neurosci Lett. 1999;265:119–122. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(99)00218-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [3]Curio G, Neuloh G, Numminen J, Jousmaki V, Hari R. Speaking modifies voice-evoked activity in the human auditory cortex. Hum Brain Mapp. 2000;9:183–191. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(200004)9:4<183::AID-HBM1>3.0.CO;2-Z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [4]Houde JF, Nagarajan SS, Sekihara K, Merzenich MM. Modulation of auditory cortex during speech: an MEG study. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002;14:1125–1138. doi: 10.1162/089892902760807140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [5]Ford JM, Mathalon DH, Heinks T, Kalba S, Faustman WO, Roth WT. Neurophysiological evidence of corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:2069–2071. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Blakemore SJ, Frith CD, Wolpert DM. Spatio-temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999;11:551–559. doi: 10.1162/089892999563607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [7]Hirano S, Kojima H, Naito Y, Honjo I, Kamoto Y, Okazawa H, et al. Cortical processing mechanism for vocalization with auditory verbal feedback. NeuroReport. 1997;8:2379–2382. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199707070-00055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [8]Heinks-Maldonado T, Mathalon D, Gray M, Ford J. Fine-tuning of auditory cortex during speech production. Psychophysiology. 2005;42:180–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00272.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [9]Näätänen R, Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology. 1987;24:375–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00311.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [10]Shuster LI, Durrant JD. Toward a better understanding of the perception of self-produced speech. J Commun Disord. 2003;36:1–11. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9924(02)00132-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [11]Shearer WM. Self-masking effects from live and recorded vowels. J Aud Res. 1978;18:213–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12]Dalal SS, Zumer JM, Agrawal V, Hild KE, Sekihara K, Nagarajan SS. NUTMEG: a neuromagnetic source reconstruction toolbox. Neurol Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;52:1–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13]Sekihara K, Nagarajan SS, Poeppel D, Marantz A, Miyashita Y. Reconstructing spatio-temporal activities of neural sources using an MEG vector beamformer technique. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2001;48:760–771. doi: 10.1109/10.930901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [14]Jeannerod M. The neural and behavioural organisation of goal-directed movements. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- [15]Jeannerod M. The mechanism of self-recognition in humans. Behav Brain Res. 2003;142:1–15. doi: 10.1016/s0166-4328(02)00384-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [16]Wolpert D, Flanagan J. Motor prediction. Curr Biol. 2001;11:729–732. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00432-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production
Tourville, J. A., & Guenther, F. H. (2011) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960903498424 · Cited by 748 · see citing works
“Studies have begun to explore putative sensory expectation projections from lateral frontal cortex to auditory cortex, establishing an inhibitory effect linked to ongoing articulator movements (eg, Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2006 ).”
Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech
Tourville, J. A., Reilly, K. J., & Guenther, F. H. (2008) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.054 · Cited by 649 · see citing works
A New Unifying Account of the Roles of Neuronal Entrainment
Lakatos, P., Gross, J., & Thut, G. (2019) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.075 · Cited by 508 · see citing works
Speech Production as State Feedback Control
Houde, J. F., & Nagarajan, S. S. (2011) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00082 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
Self-citationSensory-motor networks involved in speech production and motor control: an fMRI study
Behroozmand, R., Shebek, R., Hansen, D. R., Oya, H., Robin, D. A., Howard, M. A., & Greenlee, J. D. W. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.040 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
The Cerebro-Cerebellum as a Locus of Forward Model: A Review
Tanaka, H., Ishikawa, T., Lee, J., & Kakei, S. (2020) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2020.00019 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Speech target modulates speaking induced suppression in auditory cortex
Ventura, M. I., Nagarajan, S. S., & Houde, J. F. (2009) · BMC Neuroscience · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-58 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationVocal Responses to Perturbations in Voice Auditory Feedback in Individuals with Parkinson's Disease
Liu, H., Wang, E. Q., Metman, L. V., & Larson, C. R. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033629 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Anticipating the future: Automatic prediction failures in schizophrenia
Ford, J. M., & Mathalon, D. H. (2012) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.004 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech
Whitford, T. J., Jack, B. N., Pearson, D., Griffiths, O., Luque, D., Harris, A. W., Spencer, K. M., & Le Pelley, M. E. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.28197 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
“In this case, engaging in inner speech would be expected to result in maximal N1-suppression to overt speech in the case where two conditions were met: (1) the external sound was presented at precisely the same time as the inner speech was produced, and (2) the content of the external sound matched the content of the…”
InfluentialCorollary Discharge Provides the Sensory Content of Inner Speech
Scott, M. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613478614 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Modeling the Role of Sensory Feedback in Speech Motor Control and Learning
Parrell, B., & Houde, J. (2019) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2019_jslhr-s-csmc7-18-0127 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Self-citationYlinen, S., Nora, A., Leminen, A., Hakala, T., Huotilainen, M., Shtyrov, Y., Mäkelä, J. P., & Service, E. (2015) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht351 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Heinks-Maldonado, T. H., Nagarajan, S. S., & Houde, J. F.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Venue
- NeuroReport
- Published
- 2006-09-18
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1375-1379
- ISSN
- 0959-4965 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4060597
- OpenAlex
- W2065426584
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 1.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Neuroreport (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC006435, R01DC006436, R01DC004855)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Keywords
- forward model, speech production, auditory feedback, self-produced speech, M100, auditory cortex
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Biofeedback, Psychology, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perceptual Masking, Reaction Time, Speech, Speech Acoustics, Speech Perception, Speech Production Measurement, Magnetoencephalography
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
