Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 May 15;61(1):314-22.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.068. Epub 2012 Mar 3.

Understanding the neural mechanisms involved in sensory control of voice production

Affiliations

Understanding the neural mechanisms involved in sensory control of voice production

Amy L Parkinson et al. Neuroimage. .

Abstract

Auditory feedback is important for the control of voice fundamental frequency (F0). In the present study we used neuroimaging to identify regions of the brain responsible for sensory control of the voice. We used a pitch-shift paradigm where subjects respond to an alteration, or shift, of voice pitch auditory feedback with a reflexive change in F0. To determine the neural substrates involved in these audio-vocal responses, subjects underwent fMRI scanning while vocalizing with or without pitch-shifted feedback. The comparison of shifted and unshifted vocalization revealed activation bilaterally in the superior temporal gyrus (STG) in response to the pitch shifted feedback. We hypothesize that the STG activity is related to error detection by auditory error cells located in the superior temporal cortex and efference copy mechanisms whereby this region is responsible for the coding of a mismatch between actual and predicted voice F0.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experimental design for a single trial of volume acquisition and expected HRF
Figure 2
Figure 2
Group average vocal responses to downwards (a) and upwards (b) pitch shifted stimuli. The pitch shift occurred at time t=0. Figure shows mean responses in cents with standard error bars (n=11).
Figure 3
Figure 3
BOLD response for a comparison of unshifted vocalization condition compared to the baseline rest condition (NoShift-Rest). (b) Bold responses for the shifted vocalization condition compared to the baseline rest condition (Shift-Rest). Data shown represents group responses (n=12) from a random effects analysis.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) Fixed effects (p<0.05, FWE) and (b) random effects (p<0.001) analysis of BOLD responses to the vocalization pitch shift – no shift contrast (n=12).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aliu SO, Houde JF, Nagarajan SS. Motor-induced suppression of the auditory cortex. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2009;21(4):791–802. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Angelocci AA, Kopp GA, Holbrook A. The Vowel Formants of Deaf and Normal-Hearing Eleven- to Fourteen-Year-Old Boys. J Speech Hear Disord. 1964;29:156–160. - PubMed
    1. Bauer JJ, Mittal J, Larson CR, Hain TC. Vocal responses to unanticipated perturbations in voice loudness feedback: an automatic mechanism for stabilizing voice amplitude. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(4):2363–2371. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Behroozmand R, Karvelis L, Liu H, Larson C. Vocalization-induced enhancement of the auditory cortex responsiveness during voice F0 feedback perturbation. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2009;120:1303–1312. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Behroozmand R, Larson CR. Error-dependent modulation of speech-induced auditory suppression for pitch-shifted voice feedback. BMC Neurosci. 2011;12:54. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms