Assessing speech correction abilities with acoustic analyses: Evidence of preserved online correction in persons with aphasia

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

Hearing one's own speech allows for acoustic self-monitoring in real time. Left-hemisphere motor planning regions are thought to give rise to efferent predictions that can be compared to true feedback in sensory cortices, resulting in neural suppression commensurate with the degree of overlap between predicted and actual sensations. Sensory prediction errors thus serve as a possible mechanism of detection of deviant speech sounds, which can then feed back into corrective action, allowing for online control of speech acoustics. The goal of this study was to assess the integrity of this detection-correction circuit in persons with aphasia (PWA) whose left-hemisphere lesions may limit their ability to control variability in speech output. We recorded magnetoencephalography (MEG) while 15 PWA and age-matched controls spoke monosyllabic words and listened to playback of their utterances. From this, we measured speaking-induced suppression of the M100 neural response and related it to lesion profiles and speech behavior. Both speaking-induced suppression and cortical sensitivity to deviance were preserved at the group level in PWA. PWA with more spared tissue in pars opercularis had greater left-hemisphere neural suppression and greater behavioral correction of acoustically deviant pronunciations, whereas sparing of superior temporal gyrus was not related to neural suppression or acoustic behavior. In turn, PWA who made greater corrections had fewer overt speech errors in the MEG task. Thus, the motor planning regions that generate the efferent prediction are integral to performing corrections when that prediction is violated.

Speech characteristics yield important clues about motor function: Speech variability in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Motor abnormalities are predictive of psychosis onset in individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis and are tied to its progression. We hypothesize that these motor abnormalities also disrupt their speech production (a highly complex motor behavior) and predict CHR individuals will produce more variable speech than healthy controls, and that this variability will relate to symptom severity, motor measures, and psychosis-risk calculator risk scores.

STUDY DESIGN

We measure variability in speech production (variability in consonants, vowels, speech rate, and pausing/timing) in N = 58 CHR participants and N = 67 healthy controls. Three different tasks are used to elicit speech: diadochokinetic speech (rapidly-repeated syllables e.g., papapa…, pataka…), read speech, and spontaneously-generated speech.

STUDY RESULTS

Individuals in the CHR group produced more variable consonants and exhibited greater speech rate variability than healthy controls in two of the three speech tasks (diadochokinetic and read speech). While there were no significant correlations between speech measures and remotely-obtained motor measures, symptom severity, or conversion risk scores, these comparisons may be under-powered (in part due to challenges of remote data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic).

CONCLUSION

This study provides a thorough and theory-driven first look at how speech production is affected in this at-risk population and speaks to the promise and challenges facing this approach moving forward.

Movement variability can be modulated in speech production

Although movement variability is often attributed to unwanted noise in the motor system, recent work has demonstrated that variability may be actively controlled. To date, research on regulation of motor variability has relied on relatively simple, laboratory-specific reaching tasks. It is not clear how these results translate to complex, well-practiced tasks. Here, we test how variability is regulated during speech production, a complex, highly overpracticed, and natural motor behavior that relies on auditory and somatosensory feedback. Specifically, in a series of four experiments, we assessed the effects of auditory feedback manipulations that modulate perceived speech variability, shifting every production either toward (inward pushing) or away from (outward pushing) the center of the distribution for each vowel. Participants exposed to the inward-pushing perturbation (experiment 1) increased produced variability while the perturbation was applied as well as after it was removed. Unexpectedly, the outward-pushing perturbation (experiment 2) also increased produced variability during exposure, but variability returned to near-baseline levels when the perturbation was removed. Outward-pushing perturbations failed to reduce participants' produced variability both with larger perturbation magnitude (experiment 3) and after their variability had increased above baseline levels as a result of the inward-pushing perturbation (experiment 4). Simulations of the applied perturbations using a state-space model of motor behavior suggest that the increases in produced variability in response to the two types of perturbations may arise through distinct mechanisms. Together, these results suggest that motor variability is actively monitored and can be modulated even in complex and well-practiced behaviors such as speech.NEW & NOTEWORTHY By implementing a novel auditory feedback perturbation that modulates participants' perceived trial-to-trial variability without affecting their overall mean behavior, we show that variability in the speech motor system can be modulated. By assaying speech production, we expand our current understanding of variability to a well-practiced, complex behavior outside of the limb control system. Our results additionally highlight the need to incorporate the active control of variability in models of speech motor control.

Inter-Trial Formant Variability in Speech Production Is Actively Controlled but Does Not Affect Subsequent Adaptation to a Predictable Formant Perturbation

Despite ample evidence that speech production is associated with extensive trial-to-trial variability, it remains unclear whether this variability represents merely unwanted system noise or an actively regulated mechanism that is fundamental for maintaining and adapting accurate speech movements. Recent work on upper limb movements suggest that inter-trial variability may be not only actively regulated based on sensory feedback, but also provide a type of workspace exploration that facilitates sensorimotor learning. We therefore investigated whether experimentally reducing or magnifying inter-trial formant variability in the real-time auditory feedback during speech production (a) leads to adjustments in formant production variability that compensate for the manipulation, (b) changes the temporal structure of formant adjustments across productions, and (c) enhances learning in a subsequent adaptation task in which a predictable formant-shift perturbation is applied to the feedback signal. Results show that subjects gradually increased formant variability in their productions when hearing auditory feedback with reduced variability, but subsequent formant-shift adaptation was not affected by either reducing or magnifying the perceived variability. Thus, findings provide evidence for speakers’ active control of inter-trial formant variability based on auditory feedback from previous trials, but–at least for the current short-term experimental manipulation of feedback variability–not for a role of this variability regulation mechanism in subsequent auditory-motor learning.

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

PURPOSE

Auditory feedback is thought to contribute to the online control of speech production. Yet, the standard method of estimating auditory feedback control (i.e., reflexive responses to auditory-motor perturbations), although sound, requires specialized instrumentation, meticulous calibration, unnatural tasks, and specific acoustic environments. The purpose of this study was to explore more ecologically valid features of speech production to determine their relationships with auditory feedback mechanisms.

METHOD

Two previously proposed measures of within-utterance variability (centering and baseline variability) were compared with reflexive response magnitudes in 30 adults with typical speech. These three measures were estimated for both the laryngeal and articulatory subsystems of speech.

RESULTS

Regardless of the speech subsystem, neither centering nor baseline variability was shown to be related to reflexive response magnitudes. Likewise, no relationships were found between centering and baseline variability.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite previous suggestions that centering and baseline variability may be related to auditory feedback mechanisms, this study did not support these assertions. However, the detection of such relationships may have required a larger degree of variability in responses, relative to that found in those with typical speech. Future research on these relationships is warranted in populations with more heterogeneous responses, such as children or clinical populations.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17330546.

Intact Correction for Self-Produced Vowel Formant Variability in Individuals With Cerebellar Ataxia Regardless of Auditory Feedback Availability

Purpose Individuals with cerebellar ataxia (CA) caused by cerebellar degeneration exhibit larger reactive compensatory responses to unexpected auditory feedback perturbations than neurobiologically typical speakers, suggesting they may rely more on feedback control during speech. We test this hypothesis by examining variability in unaltered speech. Previous studies of typical speakers have demonstrated a reduction in formant variability (centering) observed during the initial phase of vowel production from vowel onset to vowel midpoint. Centering is hypothesized to reflect feedback-based corrections for self-produced variability and thus may provide a behavioral assay of feedback control in unperturbed speech in the same manner as the compensatory response does for feedback perturbations. Method To comprehensively compare centering in individuals with CA and controls, we examine centering in two vowels (/i/ and /ɛ/) under two contexts (isolated words and connected speech). As a control, we examine speech produced both with and without noise to mask auditory feedback. Results Individuals with CA do not show increased centering compared to age-matched controls, regardless of vowel, context, or masking. Contrary to previous results in neurobiologically typical speakers, centering was not affected by the presence of masking noise in either group. Conclusions The similar magnitude of centering seen with and without masking noise questions whether centering is driven by auditory feedback. However, if centering is at least partially driven by auditory/somatosensory feedback, these results indicate that the larger compensatory response to altered auditory feedback observed in individuals with CA may not reflect typical motor control processes during normal, unaltered speech production.

Responses to Auditory Feedback Manipulations in Speech May Be Affected by Previous Exposure to Auditory Errors

Purpose Speakers use auditory feedback to guide their speech output, although individuals differ in the magnitude of their compensatory response to perceived errors in feedback. Little is known about the factors that contribute to the compensatory response or how fixed or flexible they are within an individual. Here, we test whether manipulating the perceived reliability of auditory feedback modulates speakers' compensation to auditory perturbations, as predicted by optimal models of sensorimotor control. Method Forty participants produced monosyllabic words in two separate sessions, which differed in the auditory feedback given during an initial exposure phase. In the veridical session exposure phase, feedback was normal. In the noisy session exposure phase, small, random formant perturbations were applied, reducing reliability of auditory feedback. In each session, a subsequent test phase introduced larger unpredictable formant perturbations. We assessed whether the magnitude of within-trial compensation for these larger perturbations differed across the two sessions. Results Compensatory responses to downward (though not upward) formant perturbations were larger in the veridical session than the noisy session. However, in post hoc testing, we found the magnitude of this effect is highly dependent on the choice of analysis procedures. Compensation magnitude was not predicted by other production measures, such as formant variability, and was not reliably correlated across sessions. Conclusions Our results, though mixed, provide tentative support that the feedback control system monitors the reliability of sensory feedback. These results must be interpreted cautiously given the potentially limited stability of auditory feedback compensation measures across analysis choices and across sessions. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14167136.

Examining the Relationship Between Speech Perception, Production Distinctness, and Production Variability

Several studies have demonstrated that individuals' ability to perceive a speech sound contrast is related to the production of that contrast in their native language. The theoretical account for this relationship is that speech perception and production have a shared multimodal representation in relevant sensory spaces (e.g., auditory and somatosensory domains). This gives rise to a prediction that individuals with more narrowly defined targets will produce greater separation between contrasting sounds, as well as lower variability in the production of each sound. However, empirical studies that tested this hypothesis, particularly with regard to variability, have reported mixed outcomes. The current study investigates the relationship between perceptual ability and production ability, focusing on the auditory domain. We examined whether individuals' categorical labeling consistency for the American English /ε/-/æ/ contrast, measured using a perceptual identification task, is related to distance between the centroids of vowel categories in acoustic space (i.e., vowel contrast distance) and to two measures of production variability: the overall distribution of repeated tokens for the vowels (i.e., area of the ellipse) and the proportional within-trial decrease in variability as defined as the magnitude of self-correction to the initial acoustic variation of each token (i.e., centering ratio). No significant associations were found between categorical labeling consistency and vowel contrast distance, between categorical labeling consistency and area of the ellipse, or between categorical labeling consistency and centering ratio. These null results suggest that the perception-production relation may not be as robust as suggested by a widely adopted theoretical framing in terms of the size of auditory target regions. However, the present results may also be attributable to choices in implementation (e.g., the use of model talkers instead of continua derived from the participants' own productions) that should be subject to further investigation.

Slowed Compensation Responses to Altered Auditory Feedback in Post-Stroke Aphasia: Implications for Speech Sensorimotor Integration

Developing a clearer understanding of impairments that underlie the behavioral characteristics of aphasia is essential for the development of targeted treatments and will help inform theories of speech motor control. Impairments in sensorimotor integration of speech in individuals with conduction aphasia have previously been implicated in their repetition deficits. However, much less is known about the extent to which these integrative deficits occur outside of conduction aphasia and how this manifests behaviorally in areas other than speech repetition. In this study, we aimed to address these issues by examining the behavioral correlates of speech sensorimotor impairment under altered auditory feedback (AAF) and their relationship with the impaired ability to independently correct for online errors during picture naming in people with aphasia. We found that people with aphasia generate slower vocal compensation response to pitch-shift AAF stimuli compared with controls. However, when the timing of responses was controlled for, no significant difference in the magnitude of vocal pitch compensation was observed between aphasia and control groups. Moreover, no relationship was found between self-correction of naming errors and the timing and magnitude of vocal compensation responses to AAF. These findings suggest that slowed compensation is a potential behavioral marker of impaired sensorimotor integration in aphasia.