Niziolek, 2013: What Does Motor Efference Copy Represent? Evidence from Speech Production

[From MK (2014.12.28.0430 CET)]

What Does Motor Efference Copy Represent? Evidence from Speech Production
Caroline A. Niziolek, Srikantan S. Nagarajan, and John F. Houde

The Journal of Neuroscience, 9 October 2013, 33(41): 16110-16116; doi:
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2137-13.2013

"How precisely does the brain predict the sensory consequences of our
actions? Efference copy is thought to reflect the predicted sensation
of self-produced motor acts, such as the auditory feedback heard while
speaking. Here, we use magnetoencephalographic imaging (MEG-I) in
human speakers to demonstrate that efference copy prediction does not
track movement variability across repetitions of the same motor task.
Specifically, spoken vowels were less accurately predicted when they
were less similar to a speaker's median production, even though the
prediction is thought to be based on the very motor commands that
generate each vowel. Auditory cortical responses to less prototypical
speech productions were less suppressed, resembling responses to
speech errors, and were correlated with later corrective movement,
suggesting that the suppression may be functionally significant for
error correction. The failure of the motor system to accurately
predict less prototypical speech productions suggests that the
efferent-driven suppression does not reflect a sensory prediction, but
a sensory goal."

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/41/16110.full

M

[From Rick Marken (2014.12.28.1035)]

MK (2014.12.28.0430 CET)--

What Does Motor Efference Copy Represent? Evidence from Speech Production
Caroline A. Niziolek, Srikantan S. Nagarajan, and John F. Houde

The Journal of Neuroscience, 9 October 2013, 33(41): 16110-16116; doi:
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2137-13.2013

"How precisely does the brain predict the sensory consequences of our
actions? Efference copy is thought to reflect the predicted sensation
of self-produced motor acts, such as the auditory feedback heard while
speaking. Here, we use magnetoencephalographic imaging (MEG-I) in
human speakers to demonstrate that efference copy prediction does not
track movement variability across repetitions of the same motor task.
Specifically, spoken vowels were less accurately predicted when they
were less similar to a speaker's median production, even though the
prediction is thought to be based on the very motor commands that
generate each vowel. Auditory cortical responses to less prototypical
speech productions were less suppressed, resembling responses to
speech errors, and were correlated with later corrective movement,
suggesting that the suppression may be functionally significant for
error correction. The failure of the motor system to accurately
predict less prototypical speech productions suggests that the
efferent-driven suppression does not reflect a sensory prediction, but
a sensory goal."

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/41/16110.full

M

RM: Wow! This looks like the real deal!! A neurophysiological study
that supports the PCT idea that all but the lowest level efferents
are specifications for, not predictions of, (sensory) input, I'm
copying to Henry Yin in case he's not aware of it. I'd love to hear
what he thinks.

RM: Another great find Matti!

Best

Rick

ยทยทยท

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble