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

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/niziolek-2013-what-does-motor-efference-copy-represent-evidence-from-speech-production/7690>\
**Category:** CSG2014\
**Created:** [December 28, 2014, 3:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/niziolek-2013-what-does-motor-efference-copy-represent-evidence-from-speech-production/7690 "2014-12-28T03:35:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Matti](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/matti/32/3066_2.png) [@Matti](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Matti)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 2014, 3:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/niziolek-2013-what-does-motor-efference-copy-represent-evidence-from-speech-production/7690/1 "2014-12-28T03:35:11Z")

</div>

[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](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/41/16110.full)

M

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/niziolek-2013-what-does-motor-efference-copy-represent-evidence-from-speech-production/7690/2 "2014-12-28T18:35:44Z")

</div>

[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](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

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