Don’t blame yourself: Conscious source monitoring modulates feedback control during speech production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory feedback plays an important role in speech motor control. One of the main sources of evidence for this is studies in which online auditory feedback is perturbed during ongoing speech. In motor control, it is therefore crucial to distinguish between sensory feedback and externally generated sensory events. This is called source monitoring. Previous altered feedback studies have taken non-conscious source monitoring for granted, as automatic responses to altered sensory feedback imply that the feedback changes are processed as self-caused. However, the role of conscious source monitoring is unclear. The current study investigated whether conscious source monitoring modulates responses to unexpected pitch changes in auditory feedback. During the first block, some participants spontaneously attributed the pitch shifts to themselves (self-blamers) while others attributed them to an external source (other-blamers). Before Block 2, all participants were informed that the pitch shifts were experimentally induced. The self-blamers then showed a reduction in response magnitude in Block 2 compared with Block 1, while the other-blamers did not. This suggests that conscious source monitoring modulates responses to altered auditory feedback, such that consciously ascribing feedback to oneself leads to larger compensation responses. These results can be accounted for within the dominant comparator framework, where conscious source monitoring could modulate the gain on sensory feedback. Alternatively, the results can be naturally explained from an inferential framework, where conscious knowledge may bias the priors in a Bayesian process to determine the most likely source of a sensory event.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".