Kinematic and Acoustic Responses to Predictable and Unexpected Auditory Feedback Perturbations in Speakers With and Without Parkinson's Disease.

Purpose: Individuals with Parkinson's disease (IwPD) frequently suffer from speech articulation impairments that result in reduced intelligibility. While some studies have previously investigated auditory feedback and feedforward mechanisms as potential explanations behind these impairments, they ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research Vol. 69; no. 4; pp. 1469 - 1490
Autores principales: Rebernik, Teja, Tienkamp, Thomas, Chaboksavar, Sasha, Hoekzema, Nikki, Ciot, Valentina, Polsterer, Katharina, Gleichman, Annetje, Jonkers, Roel, Noiray, Aude, Abur, Defne, Wieling, Martijn
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Apr2026
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: Individuals with Parkinson's disease (IwPD) frequently suffer from speech articulation impairments that result in reduced intelligibility. While some studies have previously investigated auditory feedback and feedforward mechanisms as potential explanations behind these impairments, they have done so using only acoustic measures, which may not be sensitive enough to capture small changes. The current study assessed the sensorimotor control of speech articulation in IwPD and control speakers (CS) by measuring both acoustic and kinematic responses to either predictable or unexpected errors in auditory feedback while participants were speaking. Method: We employed two formant perturbation tasks: a predictable (upward) vowel perturbation task and an unexpected (upward and downward) vowel perturbation task. A total of 33 IwPD on levodopa and 25 CS performed the tasks, while their speech was recorded acoustically with a microphone and kinematically with sensors placed on the tongue and the jaw. We analyzed acoustic (first and second formant frequencies) and kinematic (jaw and tongue height and backness) correlates of vowel perturbation task responses using generalized additive modeling. Results: In the predictable vowel perturbation task, IwPD and CS did not differ in their responses in kinematic or acoustic measures. In the unexpected vowel perturbation task, we found differences between the two groups in both acoustics and kinematics for the downward perturbation, but not for the upward perturbation. For the unexpected downward perturbation, IwPD responded more slowly and to a lesser degree than did CS when vowel trajectories were modeled using the second formant and kinematic tongue body height. Conclusions: IwPD showed a reduced ability to correct unexpected errors in auditory feedback both acoustically and kinematically but retained the ability to update their speech sensorimotor maps based on predictable errors in auditory feedback. This study expands on existing assessments of language- and speech-related impairments in Parkinson's disease by highlighting important potential differences in sensorimotor control of speech articulation.