ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2022
Assessing Ecologically Valid Methods of Auditory Feedback Measurement in Individuals With Typical Speech.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do Not Cut Off Your Tail: A Mega-Analysis of Responses to Auditory Perturbation Experiments.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAuditory feedback is thought to contribute to the online control of speech production. Yet, the standard method of estimating auditory feedback control (i.e., reflexive responses to auditory-motor perturbations), although sound, requires specialized instrumentation, meticulous calibration, unnatural tasks, and specific acoustic environments. The purpose of this study was to explore more ecologically valid features of speech production to determine their relationships with auditory feedback mechanisms.
methodTwo previously proposed measures of within-utterance variability (centering and baseline variability) were compared with reflexive response magnitudes in 30 adults with typical speech. These three measures were estimated for both the laryngeal and articulatory subsystems of speech.
resultsRegardless of the speech subsystem, neither centering nor baseline variability was shown to be related to reflexive response magnitudes. Likewise, no relationships were found between centering and baseline variability.
conclusionsDespite previous suggestions that centering and baseline variability may be related to auditory feedback mechanisms, this study did not support these assertions. However, the detection of such relationships may have required a larger degree of variability in responses, relative to that found in those with typical speech. Future research on these relationships is warranted in populations with more heterogeneous responses, such as children or clinical populations. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17330546.
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.