Modificações do feedback auditivo e seus efeitos sobre a voz de indivíduos adultos: uma revisão de escopo
Modifications of auditory feedback and its effects on the voice of adult subjects: a scoping review
Moisés do Carmo Alves; Patrícia Cotta Mancini; Leticia Caldas Teixeira
Resumo
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Introduction: The auditory perception of voice and its production involve auditory feedback, kinesthetic cues and the feedforward system that produce different effects for the voice. The Lombard, Sidetone and Pitch-Shift-Reflex effects are the most studied. The mapping of scientific experiments on changes in auditory feedback for voice motor control makes it possible to examine the existing literature on the phenomenon and may contribute to voice training or therapies.
Purpose: To map experiments and research results with manipulation of auditory feedback for voice motor control in adults.
Method: Scope review following the Checklist Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension (PRISMA-ScR) to answer the question: “What are the investigation methods and main research findings on the manipulation of auditory feedback in voice self-monitoring of adults?”. The search protocol was based on the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) mnemonic strategy, in which the population is adult individuals, the concept is the manipulation of auditory feedback and the context is on motor voice control. Articles were searched in the databases: BVS/Virtual Health Library, MEDLINE/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System online, COCHRANE, CINAHL/Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SCOPUS and WEB OF SCIENCE.
Results: 60 articles were found, 19 on the Lombard Effect, 25 on the Pitch-shift-reflex effect, 12 on the Sidetone effect and four on the Sidetone/Lombard effect. The studies are in agreement that the insertion of a noise that masks the auditory feedback causes an increase in the individual’s speech intensity and that the amplification of the auditory feedback promotes the reduction of the sound pressure level in the voice production. A reflex response to the change in pitch is observed in the auditory feedback, however, with particular characteristics in each study.
Conclusion: The material and method of the experiments are different, there are no standardizations in the tasks, the samples are varied and often reduced. The methodological diversity makes it difficult to generalize the results. The main findings of research on auditory feedback on voice motor control confirm that in the suppression of auditory feedback, the individual tends to increase the intensity of the voice. In auditory feedback amplification, the individual decreases the intensity and has greater control over the fundamental frequency, and in frequency manipulations, the individual tends to correct the manipulation. The few studies with dysphonic individuals show that they behave differently from non-dysphonic individuals.
Keywords
Referencias
1 Lane H, Tranel B. The lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. J Speech Hear Res. 1971;14(4):677-709.
2 Patel R, Niziolek C, Reilly K, Guenther FH. Prosodic adaptations to pitch perturbation in running speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(4):1051-9.
3 Perkell JS, Guenther FH, Lane H, Matthies ML, Stockmann E, Tiede M, et al. The distinctness of speakers' productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(4 Pt 1):2338-44.
4 Donath TM, Natke U, Kalveram KT. Effects of frequency-shifted auditory feedback on voice F0 contours in syllables. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(1 Pt 1):357-66.
5 Jones JÁ, Munhall KG. Perceptual calibration of F0 prodution: evidence from feedback perturbation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;108(3 Pt 1):1246-51.
6 Behlau M. Voz: o livro do especialista. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2005. (vol. 2).
7 Franken MK, Acheson DJ, Mcqueen JM, Eisner F, Hagoort P. Individual variability as a window on production-perception interactions in speech motor control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(4):2007-18.
8 Tourville JÁ, Guenther FH. The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Lang Cogn Process. 2011;26(7):952-81.
9 Larson CR, Altman KW, Liu H, Hain TC. Interactions between auditory and somatosensory feedback for voice F0 control. Exp Brain Res. 2008;187(4):613-21.
10 Alghamdi N, Maddock S, Marxer R, Barker J, Brown GJ. A corpus of audio-visual Lombard speech with frontal and profile views. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;143(6):EL523-9.
11 Luo J, Hage SR, Moss CF. The Lombard effect: from acoustics to neural mechanisms. Trends Neurosci. 2018;41(12):938-49.
12 Bottalico P, Passione II, Graetzer S, Hunter EJ. Evaluation of the starting point of the Lombard Effect. Acta Acust United Acust. 2017;103(1):169-72.
13 Lombard E. Le signe de l’elevation de la voix. Ann. Mal. Oreille Larynx Nez Pharynx. 1911;37:101-19.
14 Liu H, Larson CR. Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F0 level on the pitch-shift reflex. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122(6):3671-7.
15 Kawahara H. Hearing voice: transformed auditory feedback effects on voice pitch control. In: Rosenthal DF, Okuno HG, Okuno H, Rosenthal D, editors. Computational Auditory Scene Analysis: Proceedings of the Ijcai-95 Workshop. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995.
16 Chen SH, Liu H, Xu Y, Larson CR. Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted voice feedback during English speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121(2):1157-63.
17 Larson CR, Burnett TA, Bauer JJ, Kiran S, Hain TC. Comparisons of voice F0 responses to pitch-shift onset and offset conditions. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(6):2845-8.
18 Lane H, Tranel B, Sisson C. Regulation of voice communication by sensory dynamics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1970;47(2):618-24.
19 JBI: Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Australia: JBI; 2015.
20 Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32.
21 Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. PMid:20854677.
22 Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017.
23 Fernandes LC, Bomfim DAS, Machado GC, Andrade CL. Influência da retroalimentação auditiva nos parâmetros acústicos vocais de indivíduos sem queixas vocais. Audiol Commun Res. 2018;23(0):e1785.
24 Iijima S, Ishimitsu S, Nakayama M. Effects of masking noise in auditory feedback on singing. Int J Innov Comput, Inf Control. 2017;(13):591-603.
25 Kleber B, Friberg A, Zeitouni A, Zatorre R. Experience-dependent modulation of right anterior insula and sensorimotor regions as a function of noise-masked auditory feedback in singers and nonsingers. Neuroimage. 2017;147:97-110.
26 Yiu EM-L, Yip PPS. Effect of noise on vocal loudness and pitch in natural environments: an accelerometer (ambulatory phonation monitor) study. J Voice. 2016;30(4):389-93.
27 Beck SL, Rieser JJ, Erdemir A. Singing without hearing: a comparative study of children and adults singing a familiar tune. Psychomusicology. 2017;27(2):122-31.
28 Li X, Jeng F-C. Noise tolerance in human frequency-following responses to voice pitch. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;129(1):EL21-6.
29 Caldeira CRP, Vieira VP, Behlau M. Análise das modificações vocais de repórteres na situação de ruído. CoDAS. 2012;17(3):321-6.
30 Grillo EU, Verdolini Abbott K, Lee TD. Effects of masking noise on laryngeal resistance for breathy, normal, and pressed voice. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010;53(4):850-61.
31 Lindstrom F, Waye KP, Södersten M, McAllister A, Ternström S. Observations of the relationship between noise exposure and preschool teacher voice usage in day-care center environments. J Voice. 2011;25(2):166-72.
32 Larson CR, Sun J, Hain TC. Effects of simultaneous perturbations of voice pitch and loudness feedback on voice F0 and amplitude control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121(5):2862-72.
33 Lee G-S, Hsiao T-Y, Yang CCH, Kuo TBJ. Effects of speech noise on vocal fundamental frequency using power spectral analysis. Ear Hear. 2007;28(3):343-50.
34 Ferrand CT. Relationship between masking levels and phonatory stability in normal-speaking women. J Voice. 2006;20(2):223-8.
35 Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK. Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice. 2005;19(1):15-28.
36 Mürbe D, Pabst F, Hofmann G, Sundberg J. Significance of auditory and kinesthetic feedback to singers’. J Voice. 2002;16(1):44-51.
37 Tonkinson S. The Lombard effect in choral singing. J Voice. 1994;8(1):24-9.
38 Alemi R, Lehmann A, Deroche ML. Changes in spoken and sung productions following adaptation to Pitch-shifted auditory feedback. J Voice. 2023;37(3):466.e1-15. PMid:33745802.
39 Kothare H, Raharjo I, Ramanarayanan V, Ranasinghe K, Parrell B, Johnson K, et al. Sensorimotor adaptation of speech depends on the direction of auditory feedback alteration. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020;148(6):3682-97.
40 Schenck A, Hilger AI, Levant S, Kim JH, Lester-Smith RA, Larson C. The effect of pitch and loudness auditory feedback perturbations on vocal quality during sustained phonation. J Voice. 2023;37(1):37-47. PMid:33191054.
41 Behroozmand R, Johari K, Bridwell K, Hayden C, Fahey D, den Ouden DB. Modulation of vocal pitch control through high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation of the left ventral motor cortex. Exp Brain Res. 2020;238(6):1525-35.
42 Hilger A, Cole J, Kim JH, Lester-Smith RA, Larson C. The effect of pitch auditory feedback perturbations on the production of anticipatory phrasal prominence and boundary. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(7):2185-201.
43 Ziethe A, Petermann S, Hoppe U, Greiner N, Brüning M, Bohr C, et al. Control of fundamental frequency in dysphonic patients during phonation and speech. J Voice. 2019;33(6):851-9. PMid:30143332.
44 Alsius A, Mitsuya T, Latif N, Munhall KG. Linguistic initiation signals increase auditory feedback error correction. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(2):838-45.
45 Arbeiter M, Petermann S, Hoppe U, Bohr C, Doellinger M, Ziethe A. Analysis of the auditory feedback and phonation in normal voices. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018;127(2):89-98.
46 Petermann S, Döllinger M, Kniesburges S, Ziethe A. Analysis method for the neurological and physiological processes underlying the Pitch-Shift Reflex. Acta Acust United Acust. 2016;102(2):284-97.
47 Behroozmand R, Ibrahim N, Korzyukov O, Robin DA, Larson CR. Functional role of delta and theta band oscillations for auditory feedback processing during vocal pitch motor control. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:109.
48 Patel S, Lodhavia A, Frankford S, Korzyukov O, Larson CR. Vocal and neural responses to unexpected changes in voice pitch auditory feedback during register transitions. J Voice. 2016;30(6):772.e33-40.
49 Parkinson AL, Korzyukov O, Larson CR, Litvak V, Robin DA. Modulation of effective connectivity during vocalization with perturbed auditory feedback. Neuropsychologia. 2013;51(8):1471-80.
50 Behroozmand R, Korzyukov O, Sattler L, Larson CR. Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;132(4):2468-77.
51 Behroozmand R, Korzyukov O, Larson CR. Effects of voice harmonic complexity on ERP responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(12):2408-17.
52 Liu P, Chen Z, Jones JA, Huang D, Liu H. Auditory feedback control of vocal pitch during sustained vocalization: a cross-sectional study of adult aging. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22791.
53 Larson CR, Altman KW, Liu H, Hain TC. Interactions between auditory and somatosensory feedback for voice F 0 control. Exp Brain Res. 2008;187(4):613-21.
54 Jones JA, Keough D. Auditory-motor mapping for pitch control in singers and nonsingers. Exp Brain Res. 2008;190(3):279-87.
55 Sivasankar M, Bauer JJ, Babu T, Larson CR. Voice responses to changes in pitch of voice or tone auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;117(2):850-7.
56 Leydon C, Bauer JJ, Larson CR. The role of auditory feedback in sustaining vocal vibrato. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114(3):1575-81.
57 Burnett TA, Larson CR. Early pitch-shift response is active in both steady and dynamic voice pitch control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(3):1058-63.
58 Liu H, Xu Y, Larson CR. Attenuation of vocal responses to pitch perturbations during Mandarin speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125(4):2299-306.
59 Burnett TA, Senner JE, Larson CR. Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: a preliminary study. J Voice. 1997;11(2):202-11.
60 Tomassi NE, Castro ME, Timmons Sund L, Díaz-Cádiz ME, Buckley DP, Stepp CE. Effects of sidetone amplification on vocal function during telecommunication. J Voice. 2023;37(4):553-60. PMid:33992477.
61 Bottalico P, Graetzer S, Hunter EJ. Effect of training and level of external auditory feedback on the singing voice: pitch inaccuracy. J Voice. 2017;31(1):122.e9-16.
62 Mürbe D, Pabst F, Hofmann G, Sundberg J. Effects of a professional solo singer education on auditory and kinesthetic feedback: a longitudinal study of singers’ pitch control. J Voice. 2004;18(2):236-41.
63 Chang-Yit R, Pick HL Jr, Siegel GM. Reliability of sidetone amplification effect in vocal intensity. J Commun Disord. 1975;8(4):317-24.
64 Ferreira LP, Servilha EAM, Masson MLV, Reinaldi MBFM. Políticas públicas e voz do professor: caracterização das leis brasileiras. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2009;14(1):1-7.
65 Shembel AC, Lee J, Sacher JR, Johnson AM. Characterization of primary muscle tension dysphonia using acoustic and aerodynamic voice metrics. J Voice. 2021.
66 Assad JP, Gama AC, Santos JN, Castro Magalhães M. The effects of amplification on vocal dose in teachers with dysphonia. J Voice. 2019;33(1):73-9.
67 Gaskill CS, O’Brien SG, Tinter SR. The effect of voice amplification on occupational vocal dose in elementary school teachers. J Voice. 2012;26(5):667.e19-27.
68 Jónsdottir V, Laukkanen AM, Siikki I. Changes in teachers’ voice quality during a working day with and without electric sound amplification. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2003;55(5):267-80.
69 Jónsdóttir VI. Cordless amplifying system in classrooms: a descriptive study of teachers’ and students’ opinions. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2002;27(1):29-36.
70 Laukkanen AM, Mickelson NP, Laitala M, Syrjä T, Salo A, Sihvo M. Effects of HearFones on speaking and singing voice quality. J Voice. 2004;18(4):475-87.
71 Jónsdottir V, Laukkanen AM, Ilomäki I, Roininen H, Alastalo-Borenius M, Vilkman E. Effects of amplified and damped auditory feedback on vocal characteristics. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2001;26(2):76-81.
72 Dragone MLS, Ferreira LP, Giannini SPP, Simões-Zenari M, Vieira VP, Behlau M. Voz do professor: uma revisão de 15 anos de contribuição fonoaudiológica. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2010;15(2):289-96.
73 Servilha EAM, Ruela IS. Riscos ocupacionais à saúde e voz de professores: especificidades das unidades de rede municipal de ensino. Rev CEFAC. 2010;12(1):109-14.
74 Roy N, Weinrich B, Gray SD, Tanner K, Toledo SW, Dove H, et al. Voice amplification versus vocal hygiene instruction for teachers with voice disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(4):625-38.
75 McCormick CA, Roy N. The ChatterVox™ portable voice amplifier: a means to vibration dose reduction? J Voice. 2002;16(4):502-8.
76 Nudelmam CJ, Codinho J, Fry AC, Bottalico P, Rubin AD. Voice biofeedback via bone conduction headphones: effects on acoustic voice parameters and self-reported vocal effort in individuals with voice disorders. J Voice. 2022.
77 Siegel GM, Pick HL Jr. Auditory feedback in the regulation of voice. J Acoust Soc Am. 1974;56(5):1618-24.
78 Bottalico P, Graetzer S, Hunter EJ. Effect of Training and Level of External Auditory Feedback on the Singing Voice: volume and Quality. J Voice. 2016;30(4):434-42.
79 Bottalico P, Graetzer S, Hunter EJ. Effects of voice style, noise level, and acoustic feedback on objective and subjective voice evaluations. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;138(6):EL498-503.
Submitted date:
23/08/2022
Accepted date:
29/05/2023
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email