Cited by 72Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeuroscience and Music PerceptionTactile and Sensory Interactions

The sensory consequences of speaking: parametric neural cancellation during speech in auditory cortex

Open access
Christoffels, Ingrid K., van de Ven, Vincent, Waldorp, Lourens J., Formisano, Elia, Schiller, Niels O.·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

When we speak, we provide ourselves with auditory speech input. Efficient monitoring of speech is often hypothesized to depend on matching the predicted sensory consequences from internal motor commands (forward model) with actual sensory feedback. In this paper we tested the forward model hypothesis using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. We administered an overt picture naming task in which we parametrically reduced the quality of verbal feedback by noise masking. Presentation of the same auditory input in the absence of overt speech served as listening control condition. Our results suggest that a match between predicted and actual sensory feedback results in inhibition of cancellation of auditory activity because speaking with normal unmasked feedback reduced activity in the auditory cortex compared to listening control conditions. Moreover, during self-generated speech, activation in auditory cortex increased as the feedback quality of the self-generated speech decreased. We conclude that during speaking early auditory cortex is involved in matching external signals with an internally generated model or prediction of sensory consequences, the locus of which may reside in auditory or higher order brain areas. Matching at early auditory cortex may provide a very sensitive monitoring mechanism that highlights speech production errors at very early levels of processing and may efficiently determine the self-agency of speech input.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0018307

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Activation related to processing the sound of the speaker's own voice is less during speech production than when hearing a recording of the spoken response.

    “In the bilateral superior temporal gyri associated with auditory processing, further studies showed that activation related to processing the sound of the speaker's own voice was less during the process of producing the speech than when hearing a recording of the spoken response (Ventura et al., 2009; Christoffels et al., 2011).”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Talairach J Tournoux P 1988 Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the humran brain New York Thieme Medical

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Christoffels, I. K., van de Ven, V., Waldorp, L. J., Formisano, E., & Schiller, N. O.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Christoffels, Ingrid K.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-05-19
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
e18307
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100505261
Cited by
72
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (452-04-337, 453-02-006, 451-07-014, 451-06-009)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
forward model, auditory cortex, sensory feedback, noise masking, speech monitoring, self-agency, prediction error, overt speech, picture naming
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Cortex, Auditory Perception, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Sensory Receptor Cells, Speech, Speech Perception, Young Adult, Feedback, Sensory

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