↓ Skip to main content

Auditory feedback of one’s own voice is used for high-level semantic monitoring: the “self-comprehension” hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Auditory feedback of one’s own voice is used for high-level semantic monitoring: the “self-comprehension” hypothesis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00166
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Lind, Lars Hall, Björn Breidegard, Christian Balkenius, Petter Johansson

Abstract

What would it be like if we said one thing, and heard ourselves saying something else? Would we notice something was wrong? Or would we believe we said the thing we heard? Is feedback of our own speech only used to detect errors, or does it also help to specify the meaning of what we say? Comparator models of self-monitoring favor the first alternative, and hold that our sense of agency is given by the comparison between intentions and outcomes, while inferential models argue that agency is a more fluent construct, dependent on contextual inferences about the most likely cause of an action. In this paper, we present a theory about the use of feedback during speech. Specifically, we discuss inferential models of speech production that question the standard comparator assumption that the meaning of our utterances is fully specified before articulation. We then argue that auditory feedback provides speakers with a channel for high-level, semantic "self-comprehension". In support of this we discuss results using a method we recently developed called Real-time Speech Exchange (RSE). In our first study using RSE (Lind et al., in press) participants were fitted with headsets and performed a computerized Stroop task. We surreptitiously recorded words they said, and later in the test we played them back at the exact same time that the participants uttered something else, while blocking the actual feedback of their voice. Thus, participants said one thing, but heard themselves saying something else. The results showed that when timing conditions were ideal, more than two thirds of the manipulations went undetected. Crucially, in a large proportion of the non-detected manipulated trials, the inserted words were experienced as self-produced by the participants. This indicates that our sense of agency for speech has a strong inferential component, and that auditory feedback of our own voice acts as a pathway for semantic monitoring. We believe RSE holds great promise as a tool for investigating the role of auditory feedback during speech, and we suggest a number of future studies to serve this purpose.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 65 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 39%
Computer Science 5 7%
Linguistics 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2014.
All research outputs
#12,898,658
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,673
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,828
of 224,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#95
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 224,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.