The predictability of frequency‐altered auditory feedback changes the weighting of feedback and feedforward input for speech motor control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech production requires the combined effort of a feedback control system driven by sensory feedback, and a feedforward control system driven by internal models. However, the factors that dictate the relative weighting of these feedback and feedforward control systems are unclear. In this event-related potential (ERP) study, participants produced vocalisations while being exposed to blocks of frequency-altered feedback (FAF) perturbations that were either predictable in magnitude (consistently either 50 or 100 cents) or unpredictable in magnitude (50- and 100-cent perturbations varying randomly within each vocalisation). Vocal and P1-N1-P2 ERP responses revealed decreases in the magnitude and trial-to-trial variability of vocal responses, smaller N1 amplitudes, and shorter vocal, P1 and N1 response latencies following predictable FAF perturbation magnitudes. In addition, vocal response magnitudes correlated with N1 amplitudes, vocal response latencies, and P2 latencies. This pattern of results suggests that after repeated exposure to predictable FAF perturbations, the contribution of the feedforward control system increases. Examination of the presentation order of the FAF perturbations revealed smaller compensatory responses, smaller P1 and P2 amplitudes, and shorter N1 latencies when the block of predictable 100-cent perturbations occurred prior to the block of predictable 50-cent perturbations. These results suggest that exposure to large perturbations modulates responses to subsequent perturbations of equal or smaller size. Similarly, exposure to a 100-cent perturbation prior to a 50-cent perturbation within a vocalisation decreased the magnitude of vocal and N1 responses, but increased P1 and P2 latencies. Thus, exposure to a single perturbation can affect responses to subsequent perturbations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".