Dynamic cortical imaging of speech compensation for auditory feedback perturbations
Abstract
Understanding how auditory feedback is processed and used during speech production is a long-standing issue, one that has classically been investigated by looking at how altering auditory feedback affects speech. Recently, the advent of functional neuroimaging methods has also allowed examination of how producing speech affects the neural processes serving auditory perception. Here, whole-head magnetic source imaging (MSI) was used to monitor cortical activity as speakers responded to brief perturbations of the pitch or amplitude of their speech. Prior studies have shown that such perturbations cause compensatory responses in speech motor output. MSI recordings were acquired at the onset of feedback perturbations as the subject continuously vocalized and also when the subject passively listened to recordings of the perturbed feedback. A response to the perturbations was found around auditory cortex between 100 and 400 ms postperturbation that was enhanced while subjects vocalized, as compared to when they passively listened. The size of this response enhancement was a significant predictor of how much a subject compensated for the feedback perturbation. Time-frequency optimized adaptive spatial filtering was also used to localize cortical activations that correlated significantly with degree of compensation across subjects. [Work supported by NSF grant BCS-0349582 and NIH/NIDCD grant R01-DC006435.]
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Houde and colleagues, as well as Rauschecker and Scott, have advanced comparable models.
“Similar models are proposed by Houde (Houde et al., 2007; Ventura et al., 2009) and Rauschecker and Scott (2009).”
From Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models (2010) · cites this paper as Houde et al., 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models
Tian, X. (2010) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00166 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
“Ventura, M., Nagarajan, S., and Houde, J. (2009).”
InfluentialSpeech 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-citation
- Authors
- Houde, J., Nagarajan, S., & Heinks-Maldonado, T.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Depts. of Otolaryngol. and Radiol., Univ. of California, 513 Parnassus Ave., HSE800, San Francisco, CA 94143
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 2007-05-01
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 5_Supplement
- Pages
- 3045-3045
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2033303000
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2021: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Keywords
- auditory feedback perturbation, auditory cortex, speech motor control, pitch perturbation, shimmer, vocalizations, passive listening, cortical activation, adaptive spatial filtering, time-frequency analysis, speech production
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