Test–Retest Reliability of Behavioral Assays of Feedforward and Feedback Auditory–Motor Control of Voice and Articulation.

Purpose: Behavioral assays of feedforward and feedback auditory–motor control of voice and articulation frequently are used to make inferences about underlying neural mechanisms and to study speech development and disorders. However, no studies have examined the test–retest reliability of such measu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research Vol. 67; no. 1; pp. 34 - 49
Autores principales: Kapsner-Smith, Mara R., Abur, Defne, Eadie, Tanya L., Stepp, Cara E.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Jan2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=174704258&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 174704258
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10924388
        1SM
      jtl: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research
      issn: 10924388
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2024
      vid: 67
      iid: 1
      pid: 42
      pub: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
    artinfo:
      ui:
        174704258
        10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00038
      ppf: 34
      ppct: 15
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 1.3MB
      tig:
        atl: Test–Retest Reliability of Behavioral Assays of Feedforward and Feedback Auditory–Motor Control of Voice and Articulation.
      aug:
        au:
          Kapsner-Smith, Mara R.
          Abur, Defne
          Eadie, Tanya L.
          Stepp, Cara E.
        affil:
          Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.
          Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, MA.
          Department of Computational Linguistics, Center for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
          Research School of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurosciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
          Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, MA.
          Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, MA.
      su:
        Washington (State)
        Motor ability
        Speech
        Statistics
        Statistical reliability
        Research evaluation
        Human voice
        Auditory perception
        Intraclass correlation
        Descriptive statistics
      sug:
        subj:
          Motor ability
          Speech
          Washington (State)
          Statistics
          Statistical reliability
          Research evaluation
          Human voice
          Auditory perception
          Intraclass correlation
          Descriptive statistics
      ab: Purpose: Behavioral assays of feedforward and feedback auditory–motor control of voice and articulation frequently are used to make inferences about underlying neural mechanisms and to study speech development and disorders. However, no studies have examined the test–retest reliability of such measures, which is critical for rigorous study of auditory–motor control. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to assess the reliability of assays of feedforward and feedback control in voice versus articulation domains. Method: Twenty-eight participants (14 cisgender women, 12 cisgender men, one transgender man, one transmasculine/nonbinary) who denied any history of speech, hearing, or neurological impairment were measured for responses to predictable versus unexpected auditory feedback perturbations of vocal (fundamental frequency, f) and articulatory (first formant, F) acoustic parameters twice, with 3–6 weeks between sessions. Reliability was measured with intraclass correlations. Results: Opposite patterns of reliability were observed for f and F; f reflexive responses showed good reliability and f adaptive responses showed poor reliability, whereas F reflexive responses showed poor reliability and F adaptive responses showed moderate reliability. However, a criterion-referenced categorical measurement of f adaptive responses as typical versus atypical showed substantial test–retest agreement. Conclusions: Individual responses to some behavioral assays of auditory–motor control of speech should be interpreted with caution, which has implications for several fields of research. Additional research is needed to establish reliable criterion-referenced measures of F adaptive responses as well as f and F reflexive responses. Furthermore, the opposite patterns of test–retest reliability observed for voice versus articulation add to growing evidence for differences in underlying neural control mechanisms.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N