Feedforward and Feedback Control in Apraxia of Speech: Effects of Noise Masking on Vowel Production

Overview

Journal J Speech Lang Hear Res

Date 2015 Jan 8

PMID 25565143

Citations 22

Authors

Edwin Maas

Marja-Liisa Mailend

Frank H Guenther

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study was designed to test two hypotheses about apraxia of speech (AOS) derived from the Directions Into Velocities of Articulators (DIVA) model (Guenther et al., 2006): the feedforward system deficit hypothesis and the feedback system deficit hypothesis.

Method: The authors used noise masking to minimize auditory feedback during speech. Six speakers with AOS and aphasia, 4 with aphasia without AOS, and 2 groups of speakers without impairment (younger and older adults) participated. Acoustic measures of vowel contrast, variability, and duration were analyzed.

Results: Younger, but not older, speakers without impairment showed significantly reduced vowel contrast with noise masking. Relative to older controls, the AOS group showed longer vowel durations overall (regardless of masking condition) and a greater reduction in vowel contrast under masking conditions. There were no significant differences in variability. Three of the 6 speakers with AOS demonstrated the group pattern. Speakers with aphasia without AOS did not differ from controls in contrast, duration, or variability.

Conclusion: The greater reduction in vowel contrast with masking noise for the AOS group is consistent with the feedforward system deficit hypothesis but not with the feedback system deficit hypothesis; however, effects were small and not present in all individual speakers with AOS. Theoretical implications and alternative interpretations of these findings are discussed.

Citing Articles

Pars Opercularis Underlies Efferent Predictions and Successful Auditory Feedback Processing in Speech: Evidence From Left-Hemisphere Stroke.

Beach S, Tang D, Kiran S, Niziolek C Neurobiol Lang (Camb). 2024; 5(2):454-483.

PMID: 38911464 PMC: 11192514. DOI: 10.1162/nol_a_00139.

A targeted review of prosodic production in agrammatic aphasia.

Zipse L, Gallee J, Shattuck-Hufnagel S Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2024; :1-41.

PMID: 38848458 PMC: 11624319. DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2024.2362243.

Assessing Ecologically Valid Methods of Auditory Feedback Measurement in Individuals With Typical Speech.

Tomassi N, Weerathunge H, Cushman M, Bohland J, Stepp C J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021; 65(1):121-135.

PMID: 34941381 PMC: 9153919. DOI: 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00377.

Apraxia of speech and the study of speech production impairments: Can we avoid further confusion? Reply to Romani (2021).

Mailend M, Maas E, Story B Cogn Neuropsychol. 2021; 38(4):309-317.

PMID: 34881683 PMC: 10011684. DOI: 10.1080/02643294.2021.2009790.

Brain changes underlying progression of speech motor programming impairment.

Landin-Romero R, Liang C, Monroe P, Higashiyama Y, Leyton C, Hodges J Brain Commun. 2021; 3(3):fcab205.

PMID: 34541532 PMC: 8445394. DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcab205.

References

Hickok G . Computational neuroanatomy of speech production. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012; 13(2):135-45. PMC: 5367153. DOI: 10.1038/nrn3158. View

Lane H, Matthies M, Guenther F, Denny M, Perkell J, Stockmann E . Effects of short- and long-term changes in auditory feedback on vowel and sibilant contrasts. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007; 50(4):913-27. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/065). View

Seddoh S, Robin D, Sim H, Hageman C, Moon J, Folkins J . Speech timing in apraxia of speech versus conduction aphasia. J Speech Hear Res. 1996; 39(3):590-603. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3903.590. View

Cai S, Ghosh S, Guenther F, Perkell J . Focal manipulations of formant trajectories reveal a role of auditory feedback in the online control of both within-syllable and between-syllable speech timing. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(45):16483-90. PMC: 3268045. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3653-11.2011. View

Hickok G, Houde J, Rong F . Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: computational basis and neural organization. Neuron. 2011; 69(3):407-22. PMC: 3057382. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.019. View

Ballard K, Robin D . Influence of continual biofeedback on jaw pursuit-tracking in healthy adults and in adults with apraxia plus aphasia. J Mot Behav. 2007; 39(1):19-28. DOI: 10.3200/JMBR.39.1.19-28. View

Maas E, Robin D, Wright D, Ballard K . Motor programming in apraxia of speech. Brain Lang. 2008; 106(2):107-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.03.004. View

Bakeman R . Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behav Res Methods. 2006; 37(3):379-84. DOI: 10.3758/bf03192707. View

Ghosh S, Matthies M, Maas E, Hanson A, Tiede M, Menard L . An investigation of the relation between sibilant production and somatosensory and auditory acuity. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 128(5):3079-87. PMC: 3003728. DOI: 10.1121/1.3493430. View

10.

Ziegler W . Psycholinguistic and motor theories of apraxia of speech. Semin Speech Lang. 2002; 23(4):231-44. DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-35798. View

11.

Terband H, Maassen B, Guenther F, Brumberg J . Auditory-motor interactions in pediatric motor speech disorders: neurocomputational modeling of disordered development. J Commun Disord. 2014; 47:17-33. PMC: 3971843. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.01.001. View

12.

Civier O, Tasko S, Guenther F . Overreliance on auditory feedback may lead to sound/syllable repetitions: simulations of stuttering and fluency-inducing conditions with a neural model of speech production. J Fluency Disord. 2010; 35(3):246-79. PMC: 2939043. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2010.05.002. View

13.

Houde J, Jordan M . Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science. 1998; 279(5354):1213-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5354.1213. View

14.

Guenther F, Hampson M, Johnson D . A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements. Psychol Rev. 1998; 105(4):611-33. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.4.611-633. View

15.

Fucci D, Crary M, Warren J, Bond Z . Interaction between auditory and oral sensory feedback in speech regulation. Percept Mot Skills. 1977; 45(1):123-9. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1977.45.1.123. View

16.

Kelso J, Tuller B . "Compensatory articulation" under conditions of reduced afferent information: a dynamic formulation. J Speech Hear Res. 1983; 26(2):217-24. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.2602.217. View

17.

Ryalls J . An acoustic study of vowel production in aphasia. Brain Lang. 1986; 29(1):48-67. DOI: 10.1016/0093-934x(86)90033-7. View

18.

Terband H, Maassen B, Guenther F, Brumberg J . Computational neural modeling of speech motor control in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009; 52(6):1595-609. PMC: 2959199. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0283). View

19.

Crawford J, Garthwaite P, Porter S . Point and interval estimates of effect sizes for the case-controls design in neuropsychology: rationale, methods, implementations, and proposed reporting standards. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2010; 27(3):245-60. DOI: 10.1080/02643294.2010.513967. View

20.

Perkell J, Denny M, Lane H, Guenther F, Matthies M, Tiede M . Effects of masking noise on vowel and sibilant contrasts in normal-hearing speakers and postlingually deafened cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121(1):505-18. DOI: 10.1121/1.2384848. View