Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40333910›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Susceptibility to auditory feedback manipulations and individual variability.

Muge Ozker, Peter Hagoort

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Individual differences in speech monitoring: Functional and structural correlates of delayed auditory feedback.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Muge OzkerMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7472-4528
Peter HagoortMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring auditory feedback from hearing one's own voice is important for fluent and precise speech production as it enables the detection and correction of speech errors. This influence is evident when auditory feedback is manipulated, such as through delayed auditory feedback (DAF), which affects speech fluency by slowing speech rate, or pitch-perturbed auditory feedback (PAF), which affects vocalization leading to changes in voice pitch. Previous studies have tested both DAF and PAF in clinical populations and showed that susceptibility to these manipulations varied largely across individuals with different disorders. However, it remains unclear whether this variability stems from different task manipulations, as no single study has systematically tested both types of feedback manipulations within the same population. DAF and PAF affect different aspects of speech likely engaging distinct neural mechanisms. It remains uncertain whether individuals highly susceptible to one type of manipulation will also be susceptible to the other. To address this, we examined neurotypical individuals instead of clinical populations, allowing us to better control background variability. In addition to task manipulations, we were also interested in why individuals within a population vary in their susceptibility under each task manipulation. One possible explanation for individual differences in susceptibility is that some individuals rely more on auditory feedback, making them more sensitive to disruptions, while others depend more on alternative sensory modalities, rendering them less affected. Visual feedback, such as seeing one's own mouth movements, has been shown to improve speech production in clinical populations with impairments. We aimed to test whether providing visual feedback as an alternative sensory modality could similarly reduce the effects of altered auditory feedback on speech in neurotypical individuals, particularly among those who may rely more on non-auditory sensory feedback. We recorded voice samples from 40 neurotypical participants during DAF and PAF tasks. In the DAF task, participants repeated sentences while experiencing delayed feedback, which significantly reduced their speech rate. In the PAF task, participants phonated a sustained vowel sound and experienced unexpected pitch perturbations in their auditory feedback. In most trials, they adjusted their voice pitch in the opposite direction to compensate for the perturbation. We assessed susceptibility to DAF and PAF by examining speech rate and peak amplitude of the compensatory response, respectively. Participants highly susceptible to DAF experienced notable speech rate reductions, while those highly susceptible to PAF exhibited larger pitch adjustments. Susceptibility varied widely among participants, with no consistent overlap between those sensitive to DAF and those sensitive to PAF, supporting distinct processing mechanisms for these different manipulations. Additionally, to examine the effect of visual feedback on speech production, we focused on the DAF task, as it involves visible mouth movements during sentence repetition. In some trials, participants received visual feedback by watching themselves speak through a webcam. Contrary to expectations, this immediate visual feedback did not alleviate but rather strengthened the disruptive effects of DAF, further reducing speech rate.

Indexed as

Feedback, SensorySpeechAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansIndividualityMaleSpeech PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40333910
PMCPMC12057900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.