Title |
Sensory Attenuation of Self-Produced Feedback: The Lombard Effect Revisited
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0049370 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Amanda S. Therrien, James Lyons, Ramesh Balasubramaniam |
Abstract |
The Lombard effect describes the automatic and involuntary increase in vocal intensity that speakers exhibit in a noisy environment. Previous studies of the Lombard effect have typically focused on the relationship between speaking and hearing. Automatic and involuntary increases in motor output have also been noted in studies of finger force production, an effect attributed to mechanisms of sensory attenuation. The present study tested the hypothesis that sensory attenuation mechanisms also underlie expression of the Lombard effect. Participants vocalized phonemes in time with a metronome, while auditory and visual feedback of their performance were manipulated or removed during the course of the trial. We demonstrate that providing a visual reference to calibrate somatosensory-based judgments of current vocal intensity resulted in reduced expression of the Lombard effect. Our results suggest that sensory attenuation effects typically seen in fingertip force production play an important role in the control of speech volume. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 25% |
Egypt | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 2 | 5% |
Luxembourg | 1 | 2% |
United States | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 39 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
Researcher | 6 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
Professor | 4 | 9% |
Other | 6 | 14% |
Unknown | 9 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 23% |
Psychology | 5 | 12% |
Linguistics | 5 | 12% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
Other | 7 | 16% |
Unknown | 12 | 28% |