ArticleScientific reports2020
Adaptation to pitch-altered feedback is independent of one's own voice pitch sensitivity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensorimotor Adaptation of Vocal Pitch Is Impaired in Cerebellar Ataxia.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Relationships Among Auditory Discrimination, Adaptive Vocal Learning, and Perilaryngeal Muscle Activation in People With and Without Hyperfunctional Voice Disorders.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Sensorimotor adaptation of vocal pitch is severely impaired in cerebellar ataxia.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Oscillatory brain indexes of auditory-induced predictions about contingences during vocalizations.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- Adaptation response to pitch shift during speech is attenuated upon relearning.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Motor Processing in Children With Cochlear Implants as Assessed by Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.Perceptual and motor skills · 2024Article
- Test-Retest Reliability of Behavioral Assays of Feedforward and Feedback Auditory-Motor Control of Voice and Articulation.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- LaDIVA: A neurocomputational model providing laryngeal motor control for speech acquisition and production.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Identifying distinct latent classes of pitch-shift response consistency: Evidence from manipulating the predictability of shift direction.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monitoring voice pitch is a fine-tuned process in daily conversations as conveying accurately the linguistic and affective cues in a given utterance depends on the precise control of phonation and intonation. This monitoring is thought to depend on whether the error is treated as self-generated or externally-generated, resulting in either a correction or inflation of errors. The present study reports on two separate paradigms of adaptation to altered feedback to explore whether participants could behave in a more cohesive manner once the error is of comparable size perceptually. The vocal behavior of normal-hearing and fluent speakers was recorded in response to a personalized size of pitch shift versus a non-specific size, one semitone. The personalized size of shift was determined based on the just-noticeable difference in fundamental frequency (F0) of each participant's voice. Here we show that both tasks successfully demonstrated opposing responses to a constant and predictable F0 perturbation (on from the production onset) but these effects barely carried over once the feedback was back to normal, depicting a pattern that bears some resemblance to compensatory responses. Experiencing a F0 shift that is perceived as self-generated (because it was precisely just-noticeable) is not enough to force speakers to behave more consistently and more homogeneously in an opposing manner. On the contrary, our results suggest that the type of the response as well as the magnitude of the response do not depend in any trivial way on the sensitivity of participants to their own voice pitch. Based on this finding, we speculate that error correction could possibly occur even with a bionic ear, typically even when F0 cues are too subtle for cochlear implant users to detect accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.