Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions
Tonal-Language Experience Affects Neural Processing during Auditory-Motor Control of Vocal Pitch
Poster Session D, Thursday, October 1, 4:30 - 6:30 pm, Wangari Maathai
Dan Mu1,2, Luyao Wang1, Martijn Wieling1, Defne Abur1,2, Frank Tsiwah1; 1Center for Language and Cognition Groningen, University of Groningen, 2Research School for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurosciences Groningen, University of Groningen
People monitor their speech via auditory feedback and correct their speech when they hear errors that do not match their intentions. This process is known as auditory-motor control, a fundamental component of speech production ensuring speech accuracy and fluency. Voice fundamental frequency (fo), which is the vibratory frequency of the vocal folds and the acoustic correlate of vocal pitch, is an inherent part of speech and used to convey different meanings in communication. The auditory-motor control of fo is therefore important for speech production. One underexplored question about fo auditory–motor control concerns the role of tonal-language experience. Tonal languages use word-level variations in fo to differentiate lexical meanings, whereas non-tonal languages do not. The more precise use of fo in tonal languages leads tonal-language speakers to exhibit different fo sensitivity and variability compared with non-tonal-language speakers. The present study is the first to examine whether fo auditory–motor control differs at the neural level between speakers with and without tonal-language experience, using Event-related Potentials (ERP). Such differences would extend current understanding of language-specific brain plasticity to the domain of fo sensorimotor control. The current study will include 20 speakers with native tonal-language experience (Mandarin speakers) and 20 speakers without tonal-language experience (Dutch speakers) by the time of the conference (N = 40). To-date, 11 speakers per group have participated (N = 22/40) and data collection is ongoing. Groups are matched for age, sex, and musical experience, due to the known effects of these factors on fo processing. To examine fo auditory–motor control, all participants completed a fo perturbation task, where speakers produced 300 trials of prolonged /a/s and received real-time auditory feedback via a headphone while fitted with a 64-electrode EEG cap. The fo of their auditory feedback was unexpectedly perturbed -100 cents for random 100 trials, starting from 1000–1500ms post voice onset and sustained until the end of the vocalization. The perturbation introduced an “auditory error” (i.e., a mismatch between their perceived and intended fo). The speakers’ behavioral acoustic responses (through voice recording) and brain responses (through EEG recording) to this auditory error were measured. Based on the results from the current participants, all speakers produced compensatory responses that opposed the direction of the perturbation to correct the errors, as shown in prior work. The tonal-language speakers’ acoustic responses (M = 28.24 cents, SD = 15.18) were larger than those of non-tonal-language speakers (M = 17.70, SD = 16.11). At the neural level, the two groups showed a similar frontal P1–N1–P2 ERP component in the perturbed trials. Notably, tonal-language speakers showed a markedly reduced P300 component, peaking approximately 400 ms after perturbation onset, relative to non-tonal-language speakers. The preliminary results indicate that having tonal language experience appears to influence how people use auditory feedback to control fo. The between-group difference in the P300 suggests that tonal-language experience may modulate later-stage attentional processing rather than early auditory error detection. At the conference, the complete dataset (N = 40) and accompanying statistical analyses will be presented and discussed.
Topic Areas: Speech Motor Control, Multisensory or Sensorimotor Integration