4.5 Article

External cueing facilitates auditory-motor integration for speech control in individuals with Parkinson's disease

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 96-105

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.12.020

关键词

Auditory feedback; Speech motor control; Parkinson's disease; External cueing; Event-related potential

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31371135, 81472154, 81772439, 81801119]
  2. Guangdong Natural Science Funds for Distinguished Young Scholar [S2013050014470]
  3. Guangdong Province Science and Technology Planning Project [2017A050501014]
  4. Guangzhou Science and Technology Programme [201604020115]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Instructing individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) to speak loudly and clearly with external cues leads to improvements of their speech in loudness, pitch, and articulatory movement, but the underlying neural mechanisms are largely unknown. The present event-related potential study investigated whether and how external cueing can facilitate auditory-motor control of speech production in PD. Individuals with PD and healthy controls produced sustained vowels with internal and external auditory cues while hearing their voice pitch-shifted -200 cents. Individuals with PD produced significantly larger vocal compensations than healthy controls in the internally cued condition and exhibited a significant decrease in the magnitudes of vocal compensations with external cueing. Moreover, individuals with PD produced significantly smaller N1 responses and larger P2 responses in the externally versus internally cued condition and exhibited a significant correlation between decreased vocal compensations and increased P2 amplitudes after external cueing. These findings provide the first neurobehavioral evidence that external auditory cueing can compensate for impaired auditory-motor processing of vocal feedback errors associated with PD in a top-down manner. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据