Speakers are able to categorize vowels based on tongue somatosensation

Quick speech motor correction in the absence of auditory feedback

A quick correction mechanism of the tongue has been formerly experimentally observed in speech posture stabilization in response to a sudden tongue stretch perturbation. Given its relatively short latency (< 150 ms), the response could be driven by somatosensory feedback alone. The current study assessed this hypothesis by examining whether this response is induced in the absence of auditory feedback. We compared the response under two auditory conditions: with normal versus masked auditory feedback. Eleven participants were tested. They were asked to whisper the vowel /e/ for a few seconds. The tongue was stretched horizontally with step patterns of force (1 N during 1 s) using a robotic device. The articulatory positions were recorded using electromagnetic articulography simultaneously with the produced sound. The tongue perturbation was randomly and unpredictably applied in one-fifth of trials. The two auditory conditions were tested in random order. A quick compensatory response was induced in a similar way to the previous study. We found that the amplitudes of the compensatory responses were not significantly different between the two auditory conditions, either for the tongue displacement or for the produced sounds. These results suggest that the observed quick correction mechanism is primarily based on somatosensory feedback. This correction mechanism could be learned in such a way as to maintain the auditory goal on the sole basis of somatosensory feedback.

The Feel of Speech: Multisystem and Polymodal Somatosensation in Speech Production

PURPOSE

The oral structures such as the tongue and lips have remarkable somatosensory capacities, but understanding the roles of somatosensation in speech production requires a more comprehensive knowledge of somatosensation in the speech production system in its entirety, including the respiratory, laryngeal, and supralaryngeal subsystems. This review was conducted to summarize the system-wide somatosensory information available for speech production.

METHOD

The search was conducted with PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar for articles published until November 2023. Numerous search terms were used in conducting the review, which covered the topics of psychophysics, basic and clinical behavioral research, neuroanatomy, and neuroscience.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The current understanding of speech somatosensation rests primarily on the two pillars of psychophysics and neuroscience. The confluence of polymodal afferent streams supports the development, maintenance, and refinement of speech production. Receptors are both canonical and noncanonical, with the latter occurring especially in the muscles innervated by the facial nerve. Somatosensory representation in the cortex is disproportionately large and provides for sensory interactions. Speech somatosensory function is robust over the lifespan, with possible declines in advanced aging. The understanding of somatosensation in speech disorders is largely disconnected from research and theory on speech production. A speech somatoscape is proposed as the generalized, system-wide sensation of speech production, with implications for speech development, speech motor control, and speech disorders.

Kinematics of Loud, Soft, and Whispered Speech

INTRODUCTION

We examined the effects of four types of voicing on vocal tract movements by comparing the articulatory kinematics of whispered speech to habitual, loud, and soft conditions.

METHODS

Participants included 10 males and 10 females with no history of communication disorders. They read six stimulus sentences in habitual, loud, soft, and whispered conditions. An electromagnetic articulograph tracked the tongue, jaw, and lip movements. Analysis focused on the words we do from a longer sentence. Vertical tongue/jaw and horizontal lip movements were measured during the production of the retracted and rounded front and back vowels in we do.

RESULTS

Soft speech led to smaller and slower lip movements than in the habitual condition. Displacement increased for the tongue and jaw in loud and whispered speech compared to the habitual condition. Tongue and jaw velocity increased for loud but not for whispered speech compared to the habitual condition. Utterance duration increased for loud and whispered conditions.

DISCUSSION

The increasing tongue and jaw displacement and velocity from soft to habitual to loud speech reported here is consistent with previous accounts. Whispering was less intense than soft speech, yet it involved larger tongue and jaw movements than habitual speech, possibly reflecting a speaker's focus on greater articulatory clarity when the acoustic signal is the weakest.

Effects of somatosensory perturbation on the perception of French /u/

In a study of whether somatosensory feedback related to articulatory configuration is involved in speech perception, 30 French-speaking adults performed a speech discrimination task in which vowel pairs along the French /u/ (rounded vowel requiring a small lip area) to /œ/ (rounded vowel associated with larger lip area) continuum were used as stimuli. Listeners had to perform the test in two conditions: with a 2-cm-diameter lip-tube in place (mimicking /œ/) and without the lip-tube (neutral lip position). Results show that, in the lip-tube condition, listeners perceived more stimuli as /œ/, in line with the proposal that an auditory-somatosensory interaction exists.

Towards a somatosensory theory of speech perception

Speech perception is known to be a multimodal process, relying not only on auditory input but also on the visual system and possibly on the motor system as well. To date there has been little work on the potential involvement of the somatosensory system in speech perception. In the present review, we identify the somatosensory system as another contributor to speech perception. First, we argue that evidence in favor of a motor contribution to speech perception can just as easily be interpreted as showing somatosensory involvement. Second, physiological and neuroanatomical evidence for auditory-somatosensory interactions across the auditory hierarchy indicates the availability of a neural infrastructure that supports somatosensory involvement in auditory processing in general. Third, there is accumulating evidence for somatosensory involvement in the context of speech specifically. In particular, tactile stimulation modifies speech perception, and speech auditory input elicits activity in somatosensory cortical areas. Moreover, speech sounds can be decoded from activity in somatosensory cortex; lesions to this region affect perception, and vowels can be identified based on somatic input alone. We suggest that the somatosensory involvement in speech perception derives from the somatosensory-auditory pairing that occurs during speech production and learning. By bringing together findings from a set of studies that have not been previously linked, the present article identifies the somatosensory system as a presently unrecognized contributor to speech perception.

Adaptation to pitch-altered feedback is independent of one's own voice pitch sensitivity

Monitoring voice pitch is a fine-tuned process in daily conversations as conveying accurately the linguistic and affective cues in a given utterance depends on the precise control of phonation and intonation. This monitoring is thought to depend on whether the error is treated as self-generated or externally-generated, resulting in either a correction or inflation of errors. The present study reports on two separate paradigms of adaptation to altered feedback to explore whether participants could behave in a more cohesive manner once the error is of comparable size perceptually. The vocal behavior of normal-hearing and fluent speakers was recorded in response to a personalized size of pitch shift versus a non-specific size, one semitone. The personalized size of shift was determined based on the just-noticeable difference in fundamental frequency (F0) of each participant’s voice. Here we show that both tasks successfully demonstrated opposing responses to a constant and predictable F0 perturbation (on from the production onset) but these effects barely carried over once the feedback was back to normal, depicting a pattern that bears some resemblance to compensatory responses. Experiencing a F0 shift that is perceived as self-generated (because it was precisely just-noticeable) is not enough to force speakers to behave more consistently and more homogeneously in an opposing manner. On the contrary, our results suggest that the type of the response as well as the magnitude of the response do not depend in any trivial way on the sensitivity of participants to their own voice pitch. Based on this finding, we speculate that error correction could possibly occur even with a bionic ear, typically even when F0 cues are too subtle for cochlear implant users to detect accurately.