IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005942.html

What drives the perceptual change resulting from speech motor adaptation? Evaluation of hypotheses in a Bayesian modeling framework

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-François Patri
  • Pascal Perrier
  • Jean-Luc Schwartz
  • Julien Diard

Abstract

Shifts in perceptual boundaries resulting from speech motor learning induced by perturbations of the auditory feedback were taken as evidence for the involvement of motor functions in auditory speech perception. Beyond this general statement, the precise mechanisms underlying this involvement are not yet fully understood. In this paper we propose a quantitative evaluation of some hypotheses concerning the motor and auditory updates that could result from motor learning, in the context of various assumptions about the roles of the auditory and somatosensory pathways in speech perception. This analysis was made possible thanks to the use of a Bayesian model that implements these hypotheses by expressing the relationships between speech production and speech perception in a joint probability distribution. The evaluation focuses on how the hypotheses can (1) predict the location of perceptual boundary shifts once the perturbation has been removed, (2) account for the magnitude of the compensation in presence of the perturbation, and (3) describe the correlation between these two behavioral characteristics. Experimental findings about changes in speech perception following adaptation to auditory feedback perturbations serve as reference. Simulations suggest that they are compatible with a framework in which motor adaptation updates both the auditory-motor internal model and the auditory characterization of the perturbed phoneme, and where perception involves both auditory and somatosensory pathways.Author summary: Experimental evidence suggest that motor learning influences categories in speech perception. These observations are consistent with studies of arm motor control showing that motor learning alters the perception of the arm location in the space, and that these perceptual changes are associated with increased connectivity between regions of the motor cortex. Still, the interpretation of experimental findings is severely handicapped by a lack of precise hypotheses about underlying mechanisms. We reanalyze the results of the most advanced experimental studies of this kind in speech, in light of a systematic and computational evaluation of hypotheses concerning motor and auditory updates that could result from motor learning. To do so, we mathematically translate these hypotheses into a unified Bayesian model that integrates for the first time speech production and speech perception in a coherent architecture. We show that experimental findings are best accounted for when motor learning is assumed to generate updates of the auditory-motor internal model and the auditory characterization of phonemes, and when perception is assumed to involve both auditory and somatosensory pathways. This strongly reinforces the view that auditory and motor knowledge intervene in speech perception, and suggests likely mechanisms for motor learning in speech production.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-François Patri & Pascal Perrier & Jean-Luc Schwartz & Julien Diard, 2018. "What drives the perceptual change resulting from speech motor adaptation? Evaluation of hypotheses in a Bayesian modeling framework," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005942
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005942
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005942&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005942?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stéphanie Tremblay & Douglas M. Shiller & David J. Ostry, 2003. "Somatosensory basis of speech production," Nature, Nature, vol. 423(6942), pages 866-869, June.
    2. Steven J. Eliades & Xiaoqin Wang, 2008. "Neural substrates of vocalization feedback monitoring in primate auditory cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7198), pages 1102-1106, June.
    3. Estelle Gilet & Julien Diard & Pierre Bessière, 2011. "Bayesian Action–Perception Computational Model: Interaction of Production and Recognition of Cursive Letters," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-23, June.
    4. Marc O. Ernst & Martin S. Banks, 2002. "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6870), pages 429-433, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marc Gueguen & Nicolas Vuillerme & Brice Isableu, 2012. "Does the Integration of Haptic and Visual Cues Reduce the Effect of a Biased Visual Reference Frame on the Subjective Head Orientation?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Simon Weiler & Vahid Rahmati & Marcel Isstas & Johann Wutke & Andreas Walter Stark & Christian Franke & Jürgen Graf & Christian Geis & Otto W. Witte & Mark Hübener & Jürgen Bolz & Troy W. Margrie & Kn, 2024. "A primary sensory cortical interareal feedforward inhibitory circuit for tacto-visual integration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Hiroyuki Umemura, 2014. "Effects of Haptic Information on the Perception of Dynamic 3-D Movement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    4. Loreen Hertäg & Katharina A. Wilmes & Claudia Clopath, 2025. "Uncertainty estimation with prediction-error circuits," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0096511 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Catarina Mendonça & Pietro Mandelli & Ville Pulkki, 2016. "Modeling the Perception of Audiovisual Distance: Bayesian Causal Inference and Other Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Erik J Schlicht & Shinsuke Shimojo & Colin F Camerer & Peter Battaglia & Ken Nakayama, 2010. "Human Wagering Behavior Depends on Opponents' Faces," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-10, July.
    8. Jacques Pesnot Lerousseau & Cesare V. Parise & Marc O. Ernst & Virginie Wassenhove, 2022. "Multisensory correlation computations in the human brain identified by a time-resolved encoding model," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Wen-Hao Zhang & Si Wu & Krešimir Josić & Brent Doiron, 2023. "Sampling-based Bayesian inference in recurrent circuits of stochastic spiking neurons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    10. repec:plo:pone00:0060039 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Joseph G Makin & Benjamin K Dichter & Philip N Sabes, 2015. "Learning to Estimate Dynamical State with Probabilistic Population Codes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-28, November.
    12. Marine Hainguerlot & Thibault Gajdos Preuss & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Vincent de Gardelle, 2023. "How Overconfidence Bias Influences Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-04197403, HAL.
    13. repec:plo:pbio00:1002073 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    15. Patricia Besson & Christophe Bourdin & Lionel Bringoux, 2011. "A Comprehensive Model of Audiovisual Perception: Both Percept and Temporal Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-11, August.
    16. Anthony Renard & Evan R. Harrell & Brice Bathellier, 2022. "Olfactory modulation of barrel cortex activity during active whisking and passive whisker stimulation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Constanze Raltschev & Sergej Kasavica & Benjamin Leonardon & Thomas Nevian & Shankar Sachidhanandam, 2025. "Top-down modulation of sensory processing and mismatch in the mouse posterior parietal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. repec:plo:pone00:0203206 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D Carrillo, 2007. "Reason, Emotion, and Information Processing in the Brain," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000001594, David K. Levine.
    21. Kyriaki A. Tychola & Konstantinos Voulgaridis & Thomas Lagkas, 2023. "Tactile IoT and 5G & beyond schemes as key enabling technologies for the future metaverse," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 363-385, November.
    22. Wendy J Adams, 2016. "The Development of Audio-Visual Integration for Temporal Judgements," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    23. Tim Genewein & Eduard Hez & Zeynab Razzaghpanah & Daniel A Braun, 2015. "Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    24. Xiaochen Zhang & Lingling Jin & Jie Zhao & Jiazhen Li & Ding-Bang Luh & Tiansheng Xia, 2022. "The Influences of Different Sensory Modalities and Cognitive Loads on Walking Navigation: A Preliminary Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005942. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.