ArticlePLoS biology2026
Audiomotor prediction errors drive speech adaptation even in the absence of overt movement.
Article in PLoS biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observed outcomes of our movements sometimes differ from our expectations. These sensory prediction errors recalibrate the brain's internal models for motor control, reflected in alterations to subsequent movements that counteract these errors (motor adaptation). While leading theories suggest that all forms of motor adaptation are driven by learning from sensory prediction errors, dominant models of speech adaptation argue that adaptation results from integrating time-advanced copies of corrective feedback commands into feedforward motor programs. Here, we tested these competing theories of speech adaptation by inducing planned, but not executed, speech. Human speakers were prompted to speak a word and, on a subset of trials, were rapidly cued to withhold the prompted speech. On standard trials, speakers were exposed to real-time playback of their own speech with an auditory perturbation of the first formant to induce single-trial speech adaptation. Speakers experienced a similar sensory error on movement cancellation trials, hearing a perturbation applied to a recording of their speech from a previous trial at the time they would have spoken. Speakers adapted to auditory prediction errors in both contexts, altering the spectral content of spoken vowels to counteract formant perturbations even when no actual produced speech coincided with the perturbed feedback. Such adaptation was not observed when participants passively listened to perturbed feedback without the intention to speak, ruling out observational learning as the cause of adaptation in movement cancellation trials. These results suggest that prediction errors, rather than corrective motor commands, drive audiomotor adaptation in speech, building on recent findings in reaching.
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.