The aim of this study was to investigate the auditory feedback mechanisms and voice quality during phonation in response to a spontaneous pitch change in the auditory feedback. Does the pitch shift reflex (PSR) change voice pitch and voice quality? Quantitative and qualitative voice characteristics were analyzed during the PSR.
Method:
Twenty-eight healthy subjects underwent transnasal high-speed video endoscopy (HSV) at 8000 fps during sustained phonation [a]. While phonating, the subjects heard their sound pitched up for 700 cents (interval of a fifth), lasting 300 milliseconds in their auditory feedback. The electroencephalography (EEG), acoustic voice signal, electroglottography (EGG), and high-speed-videoendoscopy (HSV) were analyzed to compare feedback mechanisms for the pitched and unpitched condition of the phonation paradigm statistically. Furthermore, quantitative and qualitative voice characteristics were analyzed.
Results:
The PSR was successfully detected within all signals of the experimental tools (EEG, EGG, acoustic voice signal, HSV). A significant increase of the perturbation measures and an increase of the values of the acoustic parameters during the PSR were observed, especially for the audio signal.
Conclusions:
The auditory feedback mechanism seems not only to control for voice pitch but also for voice quality aspects.
SiegelGMPickHL. Auditory feedback in the regulation of voice. J Acoust Soc Am. 1974;56(5):1618-1624.
3.
BinnieCADaniloffRGBuckinghamHW. Phonetic disintegration in a five-year-old following sudden hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord. 1982;47(2):181-189.
4.
SiegelGMKennardKL. Lombard and sidetone amplification effects in normal and misarticulating children. J Speech Hear Res. 1984;27(1):56-62.
5.
FairbanksG. Systematic research in experimental phonetics. I. A theory of the speech mechanism as a servosystem. J Speech Hear Disord. 1954;19(2):133-139.
6.
HowellPPowellDJ. Delayed auditory feedback with delayed sounds varying in duration. Percept Psychophys. 1987;42(2):166-172.
7.
BurnettTASennerJELarsonCR. Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: a preliminary study. J Voice. 1997;11(2):202-211.
8.
BurnettTAFreedlandMBLarsonCRHainTC. Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(6):3153-3161.
9.
HainTCBurnettTAKiranSLarsonCRSinghSKenneyMK. Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex. Exp Brain Res. 2000;130(2):133-141.
10.
JonesJAMunhallKG. Perceptual calibration of F0 production: evidence from feedback perturbation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;108(3 Pt 1):1246-1251.
11.
SivasankarMBauerJJBabuTLarsonCR. Voice responses to changes in pitch of voice or tone auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;117(2):850-857.
12.
BehroozmandRKorzyukovOSattlerLLarsonCR. Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;132(4):2468-2477.
13.
LarsonCRSunJHainTC. Effects of simultaneous perturbations of voice pitch and loudness feedback on voice F0 and amplitude control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121(5 Pt1):2862-2872.
14.
BauerJJMittalJLarsonCRHainTC. Vocal responses to unanticipated perturbations in voice loudness feedback: an automatic mechanism for stabilizing voice amplitude. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(4):2363-2371.
15.
HainTCBurnettTALarsonCRKiranS. Effects of delayed auditory feedback (DAF) on the pitch-shift reflex. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(5 Pt 1):2146-2152.
16.
LiuHAugerJLarsonCR. Voice fundamental frequency modulates vocal response to pitch perturbations during English speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(1):EL1-EL5.
17.
GuentherFHHampsonMJohnsonD. A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements. Psychol Rev. 1998;105(4):611-633.
18.
GuentherFH. Cortical interactions underlying the production of speech sounds. J Commun Disord. 2006;39(5):350-365.
19.
TourvilleJAReillyKJGuentherFH. Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech. Neuroimage. 2008;39(3):1429-1443.
20.
LeydonCBauerJJLarsonC. The role of auditory feedback in sustaining vocal vibrato. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114(3):1575-1581.
21.
HoppeURosanowskiFDöllingerMLohschellerJSchusterMEysholdtU. Glissando: laryngeal motorics and acoustics. J Voice. 2003;17(3):370-376.
22.
PetermannSDöllingerMKniesburgesSZietheA. Analysis method for the neurological and physiological processes underlying the pitch-shift reflex. Acta Acust United Acust. 2016;102:284-297.
23.
KlemGHLüdersHOJasperHHElgerC. The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1999;52:3-6.
24.
BehroozmandRKorzyukovOLarsonCR. Effects of voice harmonic complexity on ERP responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(12):2408-2417.
25.
LohschellerJToyHRosanowskiFEysholdtUDöllingerM. Clinically evaluated procedure for the reconstruction of vocal fold vibrations from endoscopic digital high-speed videos. Med Image Anal. 2007;11(4):400-413.
26.
YumotoEGouldWJBaerT.Harmonics-to-noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness. J Acoust. Soc. Am. 1982;71(6):1544-9.
27.
KasuyaHOgawaSMashimaKEbiharaS.Normalized noise energy as an acoustic measure to evaluate pathologic voice. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986;80(5):1329-34.
28.
KlingholzF.The measurement of the signal-to-noise ratio in continouus speech. Speech Communication1987;6(1):15-26.
29.
HillenbrandJClevelandRAEricksonRL.Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1994;37(4):769-778.
30.
LessingJ.Entwicklung einer Klassifikationsmethode zur akustischen Analyse fortlaufender Sprache unterschiedlicher Stimmgüte mittels Neuronaler Netze und deren Anwendung [Development of a classification method for the acoustic analysis of continuous speech of different vocal quality by means of neural networks their applications]. Göttingen, Germany: Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlich Fakultät, 2007.
31.
BielamowiczSKreimanJGerrattBRDauerMSBerkeGS.Comparison of voice analysis systems for perturbation measurement. J Speech Hear Res. 1996;39:126-134.
32.
MichaelisD.Das Göttinger Heiserkeits-Diagramm -Entwicklung und Prüfung eines akustischen Verfahrens zurobjektiven Stimmgütebeurteilung pathologischer Stimmen [Development and testing of an acoustic method for objective voice quality assessment of pathological voices]. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 1999.
33.
InwaldECDöllingerMSchusterMEysholdtUBohrC.Multiparametric analysis of vocal fold vibrations in healthy and disordered voices in high-speed imaging. J Voice. 2011;25:576–590.
34.
LiWChenZLiuPZhangBHuangDLiuH.Neurophysiological evidence of differential mechanisms involved in producing opposing and following responses to altered auditory feedback. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124(11):2161-2171.
35.
LiuHLarsonCR. Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F0 level on the pitch-shift reflex. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122(6):3671-3677.
36.
LiuPChenZJonesJAHuangDLiuH. Auditory feedback control of vocal pitch during sustained vocalization: a cross-sectional study of adult aging. PloS One. 2011;6(7):e22791.
37.
LarsonCRAltmanKWLiuHHainTC. Interactions between auditory and somatosensory feedback for voice F0 control. Exp Brain Res. 2008;187(4):613-621.
