Semantic focus mediates pitch auditory feedback control in phrasal prosody

References

• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, J. J., & Larson, C. R. (2003). Audio-vocal responses to repetitive pitch-shift stimulation during a sustained vocalization: Improvements in methodology for the pitch-shifting technique. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(2), 1048–1054. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1592161
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Behroozmand, R., Korzyukov, O., Sattler, L., & Larson, C. R. (2012). Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: Evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(4), 2468–2477. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4746984
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Behroozmand, R., & Larson, C. R. (2011). Error-dependent modulation of speech-induced auditory suppression for pitch-shifted voice feedback. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-12-54
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program], Version 6.0.46. Retrievable Online at http://www.Praat.Org
   Google Scholar
• Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1044–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2016). Intonation and meaning. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnett, T. A., Freedland, M. B., Larson, C. R., & Hain, T. C. (1998). Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103(6), 3153–3161. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M., Guo, J., Li, P., & Riddell, A. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S. H., Liu, H., Xu, Y., & Larson, C. R. (2007). Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted voice feedback during English speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(2), 1157–1163. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2404624
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen, X., Zhu, X., Wang, E. Q., Chen, L., Li, W., Chen, Z., & Liu, H. (2013). Sensorimotor control of vocal pitch production in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Research, 1527, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2013.06.030
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chodroff, E., & Cole, J. (2019). THE PHONOLOGICAL AND PHONETIC ENCODING OF INFORMATION STRUCTURE IN AMERICAN ENGLISH NUCLEAR ACCENTS. 4–10.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, J., Hualde, J. I., Smith, C. L., Eager, C., Mahrt, T., & Napoleão de Souza, R. (2019). Sound, structure and meaning: The bases of prominence ratings in English, French and spanish. Journal of Phonetics, 75, 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J., & Mueller, P. R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77(6), 2142–2156. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duñabeitia, J. A., Crepaldi, D., Meyer, A. S., New, B., Pliatsikas, C., Smolka, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2018). Multipic: A standardized set of 750 drawings with norms for six European languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology71, 808–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franken, M. K., Acheson, D. J., McQueen, J. M., Hagoort, P., & Eisner, F. (2018). Opposing and following responses in sensorimotor speech control: Why responses go both ways. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(4), 1458–1467. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1494-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guenther, F. H. (2016). Neural control of speech. Mit Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven, C. (2007). Types of focus in English. In C. Lee, M. Gordon, & D. Büring(Eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (pp. 83–100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_5
   Google Scholar
• Hain, T. C., Burnett, T. A., Kiran, S., Larson, C. R., Singh, S., & Kenney, M. K. (2000). Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex. Experimental Brain Research, 130(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002219900237
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hilger, A., Cole, J., Kim, J. H., Lester-Smith, R. A., & Larson, C. (2020). The effect of pitch auditory feedback perturbations on the production of anticipatory phrasal prominence and boundary. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00043
   Google Scholar
• Hilger, A. I. (2020). Impaired Sensorimotor Integration for Prosodic Production in Ataxic Dysarthria.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. Discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempster, G. B., Larson, C. R., & Kistler, M. K. (1988). Effects of electrical stimulation of cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscles on voice fundamental frequency. Journal of Voice, 2(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(88)80080-8
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. H., & Larson, C. R. (2019). Modulation of auditory-vocal feedback control due to planned changes in voice fo. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(3), 1482–1492. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5094414
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kreiman, J. (1982). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries in natural conversation. Journal of Phonetics, 10(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30955-6
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R., & Morton, R. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical? Journal of Phonetics, 25(3), 313–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0046
   Google Scholar
• Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1137–1146. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.8.1137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, C. R., Kempster, G. B., & Kistler, M. K. (1987). Changes in voice fundamental frequency following discharge of single motor units in cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscles. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 30(4), 552–558. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3004.552
   Google Scholar
• Larson, C. R., & Robin, D. A. (2016). Sensory processing: Advances in understanding structure and function of pitch-shifted auditory feedback in voice control. AIMS Neuroscience, 3(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.22
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, B. (1983). Economy of speech gestures. In Peter MacNeilage (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 217–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_10
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In William Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403–439). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H., & Larson, C. R. (2007). Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F0 level on the pitch-shift reflex. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(6), 3671–3677. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2800254
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu, H., Wang, E. Q., Chen, Z., Liu, P., Larson, C. R., & Huang, D. (2010). Effect of tonal native language on voice fundamental frequency responses to pitch feedback perturbations during sustained vocalizations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(6), 3739–3746. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3500675
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H., Xu, Y., & Larson, C. R. (2009). Attenuation of vocal responses to pitch perturbations during mandarin speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), 2299–2306. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3081523
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu, H., Zhang, Q., Xu, Y., & Larson, C. R. (2007). Compensatory responses to loudness-shifted voice feedback during production of mandarin speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(4), 2405–2412. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2773955
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Chen, S. H. A., & Lüdecke, D. (2019). Indices of effect existence and significance in the Bayesian framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2767–2767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02767.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliffe, M., Socolof, M., Mihuc, S., Wagner, M., & Sonderegger, M. (2017). Montreal forced aligner [computer program]. Version.
   Google Scholar
• Nalborczyk, L., Batailler, C., Lœvenbruck, H., Vilain, A., & Bürkner, P.-C. (2019). An introduction to Bayesian multilevel models using brms: A case study of gender effects on vowel variability in standard Indonesian. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, 62(5), 1225–1242. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-18-0006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natke, U., Donath, T. M., & Kalveram, K. T. (2003). Control of voice fundamental frequency in speaking versus singing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(3), 1587–1593. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1543928
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ouyang, I. C., & Kaiser, E. (2015). Prosody and information structure in a tone language: An investigation of mandarin Chinese. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1–2), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.805795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel, S., Nishimura, C., Lodhavia, A., Korzyukov, O., Parkinson, A., Robin, D. A., & Larson, C. R. (2014). Understanding the mechanisms underlying voluntary responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(5), 3036–3044. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4870490
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patel, S. P., Kim, J. H., Larson, C. R., & Losh, M. (2019). Mechanisms of voice control related to prosody in autism spectrum disorder and first-degree relatives. Autism Research, 12(8), 1192–1210. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2156
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perkell, J. S., Zandipour, M., Matthies, M. L., & Lane, H. (2002). Economy of effort in different speaking conditions. I. A preliminary study of intersubject differences and modeling issues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(4), 1627–1641. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1506369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perlman, A. L., & Alipour-Haghighi, F. (1988). Comparative study of the physiological properties of the vocalis and cricothyroid muscles. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 105(3–4), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016488809097021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. B. (1990). The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse, 271–311. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8KD24FP
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617
   Google Scholar
• RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio. Boston, MA: PBC. http://www.rstudio.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Scheerer, N. E., & Jones, J. A. (2018). Detecting our own vocal errors: An event-related study of the thresholds for perceiving and compensating for vocal pitch errors. Neuropsychologia, 114, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.12.007
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stavropoulou, P., & Baltazani, M. (2021). The prosody of correction and contrast. Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 76–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.10.004
   Google Scholar
• Turnbull, R., Burdin, R. S., Clopper, C. G., & Tonhauser, J. (2015). Contextual predictability and the prosodic realisation of focus: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1061–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1071856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106(3), 1548–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., & Sun, X. (2002). Maximum speed of pitch change and how it may relate to speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(3), 1399–1413. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1445789
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zarate, J. M., & Zatorre, R. J. (2008). Experience-dependent neural substrates involved in vocal pitch regulation during singing. NeuroImage, 40(4), 1871–1887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar