SEQ-Pert

The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that auditory feedback control plays a more prominent role in early than in later phases of speech motor learning, while somatosensory feedback control is more dominant in later learning phases.  In order to investigate speech production at different phases of learning, subjects participate in a Training session and a Testing session. During the Training session, subjects repeatedly produce syllables with consonant clusters which are not native to standard American English (as in Segawa et al. 2015). During the following Testing session, subject produce syllables with three different levels of well-learnedness:

1. nonnative novel

2. nonnative trained: from the earlier Training session 

3. native: containing consonant clusters which subjects are familiar with from standard American English

During the Testing session, auditory feedback perturbations will be applied on half of all trials. These perturbations will consist of 30% F1 shifts upward or downward. The specific hypothesis to test will be that compensatory responses will be reduced by well-learnedenss of the syllables, such that compensation magnitudes will be highest for nonnative novel and lowest for native syllables. This outcome is predicted to occur because the somatosensory feedback system will not be as active early in learning and therefore will not counteract auditory feedback control as much as with learned speech motor patterns, as described in the SimplaDIVA model of speech motor control (Kearney et al. 2020 ). The theory describing these systems' changing prominences during different phases of speech learning is described positing these system's changing prominence during different phases of speech learning is described in Guenther 2016, p.130, 'Formation of Target Regions'. 

Project info files

Project README

Project log

Literature

Masapollo et al. 2021 - Behavioral and Neural Correlates of Speech Motor Sequence Learning in Stuttering and Neurotypical Speakers: An fMRI Investigation

Segawa et al 2015 - The neural correlates of speech motor sequence learning

Masapollo et al. 2023

Guenther 2016 - Neural Control of Speech [book]

Perturbation Studies Summary 

Kearney et al. 2020 - simplediva paper

Bourguignon ea 2014 - f1 shift pert, adaptation - compensation is reduced when the altered feedback makes target real word sound like nonword (LC1); compensation is greater when the shift is from pseudoword-to-word (LC2), word-to-word (NLC1), pseudoword-to-pseudoword (NLC2)...... log notes here

Attention/awareness effects on pert: 

krakauer ea 2024 - F1 shift - "Divided attention slightly reduced online compensation, but only starting >300ms after vowel onset, well beyond the typical duration of vowels in speech. Divided attention had no effect on adaptation." 

zhang ea 2025 - Functional neural oscillatory activities reveal the impact of attentional instructions on speech auditory feedback control
-relevant for effect of attention on pitch pert

zhang ea 2024 - Effects of attentional instructions on the behavioral and neural mechanisms of speech auditory feedback control

suchy ea 2024 - eeg  responses- perturbation responses don't require awareness

suchy ea 2025 - Conscious and unconscious perception of pitch shifts in auditory feedback during vocalization: Behavioral functions and event-related potential correlates

Zeng ea 2023 - perturbation adaptation affects whole words, not just individual syllables

[for generalization of pert. compensation beyond a single sound, look at Daniel Lametti papers]

cheng ea 2024 - Temporal Coordination of Articulatory Gestures in Nonnative Onset Clusters: Evidence From American English Speakers Using Electromagnetic Articulography

Auditory feedback perturbation of consonants: 

Casserly 2011 - Speaker compensation for local perturbation of fricative acoustic feedback

Klein ea 2019 - The relevance of auditory feedback for consonant production: The case of fricatives

Shiller ea 2007 - Motor and sensory adaptation following auditory perturbation of/s/production 

Krakauer ea 2024 - visual distractor only has an effect on pert response at >300ms after vowel onset

Rochet-Capellan and Ostry 2011 - different perturbation adaptations to ‘head’ vs ‘bed’ [f1 up vs. down] are maintained separately within each word

Tuomiranta ea 2024 - in recovery from aphasia, novel word learning and increase in error self-correction are not highly correlated

Coarticulation and coordination in phonological development 

-look for papers which compare feedback perturbations applied in first vs. second languages - Daniel Lametti? 

ozker and hagoort 2025 - susceptibility to DAF and f0 pert are not correlated across people ... [suggests that there are multiply auditory feedback gain control parameters]

Idea of acoustic speech template being acquired before babbling inspired by work of Patricia Kuhl and others e.g., Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda, Stevens, & Lindblom,  1992
..... and research on songbirds acquired template from tutor - early citation is konishi 1965 

Presentations

Link to internal presentations (e.g., lab meetings/results updates)

Link to external presentations (e.g., conference, external talks)

Manuscripts

Link to manuscripts in collaborative software (e.g., google drive, one drive)

Link to PDFs at key points in publication process (e.g., preprints, final accepted version, published version)