Abstract
The role of auditory feedback in vocal production has mainly been investigated by altered auditory feedback (AAF) in real time. In response, speakers compensate by shifting their speech output in the opposite direction. Current theory suggests this is caused by a mismatch between expected and observed feedback. A methodological issue is the difficulty to fully isolate the speaker's hearing so that only AAF is presented to their ears. As a result, participants may be presented with two simultaneous signals. If this is true, an alternative explanation is that responses to AAF depend on the contrast between the manipulated and the non-manipulated feedback. This hypothesis was tested by varying the passive sound attenuation (PSA). Participants vocalized while auditory feedback was unexpectedly pitch shifted. The feedback was played through three pairs of headphones with varying amounts of PSA. The participants' responses were not affected by the different levels of PSA. This suggests that across all three headphones, PSA is either good enough to make the manipulated feedback dominant, or differences in PSA are too small to affect the contribution of non-manipulated feedback. Overall, the results suggest that it is important to realize that non-manipulated auditory feedback could affect responses to AAF.
Highlights
Speakers receive both somatosensory as well as auditory feedback during speech production
While it is important to acknowledge the contribution of somatosensory feedback and bone-conducted auditory feedback during speech production, the current study focuses explicitly on air-conducted auditory feedback
The current study investigated speakers’ responses to pitch perturbations with three different headphones varying in the amount of passive sound attenuation (PSA)
Summary
Speakers receive both somatosensory as well as auditory feedback during speech production. While different explanations have been offered to explain following responses, an explanation based on source monitoring of the auditory input as presented here is similar to the account by Hain et al (2000), who suggest that following might be appropriate when the speaker considers the incoming auditory signal as externally generated, instead of being self-produced (Patel et al, 2014) If this is the case, low PSA and the presence of two simultaneous auditory signals could lower the probability that the participant will consider the manipulated feedback signal as self-produced, and increase the likelihood of a following rather than an opposing response. It is likely that the headphones used differed in sound attenuation, the current study will look at the effect of sound attenuation in a pitch-shift compensation paradigm
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
