Top-Down Modulation of Auditory-Motor Integration during Speech Production: The Role of Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although working memory (WM) is considered as an emergent property of the speech perception and production systems, the role of WM in sensorimotor integration during speech processing is largely unknown. We conducted two event-related potential experiments with female and male young adults to investigate the contribution of WM to the neurobehavioural processing of altered auditory feedback during vocal production. A delayed match-to-sample task that required participants to indicate whether the pitch feedback perturbations they heard during vocalizations in test and sample sequences matched, elicited significantly larger vocal compensations, larger N1 responses in the left middle and superior temporal gyrus, and smaller P2 responses in the left middle and superior temporal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule, somatosensory cortex, right inferior frontal gyrus, and insula compared with a control task that did not require memory retention of the sequence of pitch perturbations. On the other hand, participants who underwent extensive auditory WM training produced suppressed vocal compensations that were correlated with improved auditory WM capacity, and enhanced P2 responses in the left middle frontal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule, right inferior frontal gyrus, and insula that were predicted by pretraining auditory WM capacity. These findings indicate that WM can enhance the perception of voice auditory feedback errors while inhibiting compensatory vocal behavior to prevent voice control from being excessively influenced by auditory feedback. This study provides the first evidence that auditory-motor integration for voice control can be modulated by top-down influences arising from WM, rather than modulated exclusively by bottom-up and automatic processes. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTOne outstanding question that remains unsolved in speech motor control is how the mismatch between predicted and actual voice auditory feedback is detected and corrected. The present study provides two lines of converging evidence, for the first time, that working memory cannot only enhance the perception of vocal feedback errors but also exert inhibitory control over vocal motor behavior. These findings represent a major advance in our understanding of the top-down modulatory mechanisms that support the detection and correction of prediction-feedback mismatches during sensorimotor control of speech production driven by working memory. Rather than being an exclusively bottom-up and automatic process, auditory-motor integration for voice control can be modulated by top-down influences arising from working memory.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".