Making and monitoring errors based on altered auditory feedback.

Peter Q Pfordresher,Robertson T E Beasley

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00914

Peter Q Pfordresher, Robertson T E Beasley

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00914

Copy DOI

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that altered auditory feedback (AAF) disrupts music performance and causes disruptions in both action planning and the perception of feedback events. It has been proposed that this disruption occurs because of interference within a shared representation for perception and action (Pfordresher, 2006). Studies reported here address this claim from the standpoint of error monitoring. In Experiment 1 participants performed short melodies on a keyboard while hearing no auditory feedback, normal auditory feedback, or alterations to feedback pitch on some subset of events. Participants overestimated error frequency when AAF was present but not for normal feedback. Experiment 2 introduced a concurrent load task to determine whether error monitoring requires executive resources. Although the concurrent task enhanced the effect of AAF, it did not alter participants’ tendency to overestimate errors when AAF was present. A third correlational study addressed whether effects of AAF are reduced for a subset of the population who may lack the kind of perception/action associations that lead to AAF disruption: poor-pitch singers. Effects of manipulations similar to those presented in Experiments 1 and 2 were reduced for these individuals. We propose that these results are consistent with the notion that AAF interference is based on associations between perception and action within a forward internal model of auditory-motor relationships.

Highlights

Failures of error detection are obvious to anyone who has ever said the opposite of what they intended to say, only realizing their mistake once a friend points out the error
Error frequency The percent of produced errors across feedback conditions is shown in Figure 5 for trials without the load task (Figure 5A) and with the load task (Figure 5B)
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNDERLYING SHARED REPRESENTATION A general theme connecting the results reported here has to do with the hypothesis that altered auditory feedback (AAF) disruption occurs because perception and action share a common representation, and AAF disrupts action planning because it adds activation to events planned for alternate sequence positions (Pfordresher, 2006)

Summary

Introduction

Failures of error detection are obvious to anyone who has ever said the opposite of what they intended to say, only realizing their mistake once a friend points out the error. It is possible to over-correct potential errors that may not occur, leading to dysfluencies in speech. Many factors can lead to errors, including errors of planning as well as factors related to the surrounding environment, including the stability of a device one controls (e.g., breakdown in the mechanics of a car while driving). Given the complexity involved in planning and execution during production, it is not surprising that the ability to detect errors is likewise error-prone and based on multiple factors. By contrast, during vocal performance the primary challenge involves continuous control of vocal pitch and adjustments to that pitch using laryngeal muscles (Sundberg, 1987)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion