Test–Retest Reliability of Behavioral Assays of Feedforward and Feedback Auditory–Motor Control of Voice and Articulation.
Saved in:
| Title: | Test–Retest Reliability of Behavioral Assays of Feedforward and Feedback Auditory–Motor Control of Voice and Articulation. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kapsner-Smith, Mara R.1 mkapsner@uw.edu, Abur, Defne2,3,4, Eadie, Tanya L.1, Stepp, Cara E.2,5,6 |
| Source: | Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Jan2024, Vol. 67 Issue 1, p34-48. 15p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Auditory perception, *Motor ability, Statistics, Statistical reliability, Research evaluation, Human voice, Intraclass correlation, Descriptive statistics, Speech |
| Geographic Terms: | Washington (State) |
| Abstract: | 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, fo) and articulatory (first formant, F1) acoustic parameters twice, with 3–6 weeks between sessions. Reliability was measured with intraclass correlations. Results: Opposite patterns of reliability were observed for fo and F1; fo reflexive responses showed good reliability and fo adaptive responses showed poor reliability, whereas F1 reflexive responses showed poor reliability and F1 adaptive responses showed moderate reliability. However, a criterion-referenced categorical measurement of fo 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 F1 adaptive responses as well as fo and F1 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 174704258 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Test–Retest Reliability of Behavioral Assays of Feedforward and Feedback Auditory–Motor Control of Voice and Articulation. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kapsner-Smith%2C+Mara+R%2E%22">Kapsner-Smith, Mara R.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> mkapsner@uw.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abur%2C+Defne%22">Abur, Defne</searchLink><relatesTo>2,3,4</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eadie%2C+Tanya+L%2E%22">Eadie, Tanya L.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stepp%2C+Cara+E%2E%22">Stepp, Cara E.</searchLink><relatesTo>2,5,6</relatesTo> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Journal+of+Speech%2C+Language+%26+Hearing+Research%22">Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research</searchLink>. Jan2024, Vol. 67 Issue 1, p34-48. 15p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Auditory+perception%22">Auditory perception</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Motor+ability%22">Motor ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistics%22">Statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+reliability%22">Statistical reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+evaluation%22">Research evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Human+voice%22">Human voice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intraclass+correlation%22">Intraclass correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Descriptive+statistics%22">Descriptive statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech%22">Speech</searchLink> – Name: SubjectGeographic Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Washington+%28State%29%22">Washington (State)</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: 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, fo) and articulatory (first formant, F1) acoustic parameters twice, with 3–6 weeks between sessions. Reliability was measured with intraclass correlations. Results: Opposite patterns of reliability were observed for fo and F1; fo reflexive responses showed good reliability and fo adaptive responses showed poor reliability, whereas F1 reflexive responses showed poor reliability and F1 adaptive responses showed moderate reliability. However, a criterion-referenced categorical measurement of fo 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 F1 adaptive responses as well as fo and F1 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=174704258 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00038 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 15 StartPage: 34 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Auditory perception Type: general – SubjectFull: Motor ability Type: general – SubjectFull: Statistics Type: general – SubjectFull: Statistical reliability Type: general – SubjectFull: Research evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Human voice Type: general – SubjectFull: Intraclass correlation Type: general – SubjectFull: Descriptive statistics Type: general – SubjectFull: Speech Type: general – SubjectFull: Washington (State) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Test–Retest Reliability of Behavioral Assays of Feedforward and Feedback Auditory–Motor Control of Voice and Articulation. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kapsner-Smith, Mara R. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Abur, Defne – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Eadie, Tanya L. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Stepp, Cara E. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Text: Jan2024 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 10924388 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 67 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
