Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 6, pp 1713–1723 | Cite as

The impact of perilaryngeal vibration on the self-perception of loudness and the Lombard effect

  • François-Xavier Brajot
  • Don Nguyen
  • Jeffrey DiGiovanni
  • Vincent L. Gracco
Research Article


The role of somatosensory feedback in speech and the perception of loudness was assessed in adults without speech or hearing disorders. Participants completed two tasks: loudness magnitude estimation of a short vowel and oral reading of a standard passage. Both tasks were carried out in each of three conditions: no-masking, auditory masking alone, and mixed auditory masking plus vibration of the perilaryngeal area. A Lombard effect was elicited in both masking conditions: speakers unconsciously increased vocal intensity. Perilaryngeal vibration further increased vocal intensity above what was observed for auditory masking alone. Both masking conditions affected fundamental frequency and the first formant frequency as well, but only vibration was associated with a significant change in the second formant frequency. An additional analysis of pure-tone thresholds found no difference in auditory thresholds between masking conditions. Taken together, these findings indicate that perilaryngeal vibration effectively masked somatosensory feedback, resulting in an enhanced Lombard effect (increased vocal intensity) that did not alter speakers’ self-perception of loudness. This implies that the Lombard effect results from a general sensorimotor process, rather than from a specific audio-vocal mechanism, and that the conscious self-monitoring of speech intensity is not directly based on either auditory or somatosensory feedback.


Vibration Speech Masking Noise Lombard effect Somatosensory feedback 



We wish to thank Mark Tiede, Benjamin Elgie and Thomas Gisiger for technical assistance in preparing this experiment.

Compliance with ethical standards


Parts of this study were presented in preliminary form at the 2015 Spring meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. The abstract from the proceedings was published in: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137, 2434 (2015);


  1. Adelman C, Fraenkel R, Kriksunov L, Sohmer H (2012) Interaction in the cochlea between air conduction and osseous and non-osseous bone conduction stimulation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269:425–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amazi DK, Garber SR (1982) The Lombard sign as a function of age and task. J Speech Hear Res 25:581–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreatta RD, Barlow SM (2009) Somatosensory gating is dependent on the rate of force recruitment in the human orofacial system. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52:1566–1578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baken RJ, Orlikoff RF (2000) Clinical measurement of speech and voice, 2nd edn. Cengage Learning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosco C, Cardinale M, Tsarpela O (1999) Influence of vibration on mechanical power and electromyogram activity in human arm flexor muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol 79:306–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brajot F, Shiller DM, Gracco VL (2016) Autophonic loudness perception in Parkinson’s disease. J Acoust Soc Am 139:1364–1371CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cynx J, Lewis R, Tavel B, Tse H (1998) Amplitude regulation of vocalizations in noise by a songbird (Taeniopygia guttata). Anim Behav 56:107–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dean MS, Martin FN (2000) Insert earphone depth and the occlusion effect. Am J Audiol 9:131–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairbanks G (1954) Systematic research in experimental phonetics: 1. A theory of the speech mechanism as a servosystem. J Speech Hear Disord 19:133–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairbanks G (1960) Voice and Articulation Drillbook, 2nd edn. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Fautrelle L, Bonnetblanc F (2012) On-line coordination in complex goal-directed movements: A matter of interaction between several loops. Brain Res Bull 89:57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman M (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc 32:675–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garnier M, Henric N, Dubois D (2010) Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53:588–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Guenther FH, Ghosh SS, Tourville JA (2006) Neural modeling and imaging of the cortical interactions underlying syllable production. Brain Lang 96:280–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammer MJ, Barlow SM (2010) Laryngeal somatosensory deficits in Parkinson’s disease: implications for speech respiratory and phonatory control. Exp Brain Res 201:401–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hickok G (2012) Computational neuroanatomy of speech production. Nat Rev Neurosci 13:135–145CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  18. Houde JF, Nagarajan SS (2011). Speech production as state feedback control. Frontiers Hum Neurosci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Junqua JC (1993) The lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers. J Acoust Soc Am 93(1):510–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Junqua JC (1996) The influence of acoustics on speech production: A noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex. Speech Commun 20:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katseff S, Houde J, Johnson K (2011) Partial compensation for altered auditory feedback: a tradeoff with somatosensory feedback? Lang Speech 55:295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerrison PD (1918) The tests for malingering in defective hearing. Laryngoscope 28:662–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lametti DR, Nasir SM, Ostry DJ (2012) Sensory preference in speech production revealed by simultaneous alteration of auditory and somatosensory feedback. J Neurosci 32:9351–9358CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Lane H, Tranel B (1971) The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 14:677–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lane HL, Catania AC, Stevens SS (1961) Voice level: autophonic scale, perceived loudness, and effects of sidetone. J Acoust Soc Am 33(2):160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larson CR, Altman KW, Liu H, Hain TC (2008) Interactions between auditory and somatosensory feedback for voice F0 control. Exp Brain Res 187:613–621CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee BS (1950) Effects of delayed speech feedback. J Acoust Soc Am 22:824–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee GS, Hsiao TY, Yang CCH, Kuo TBJ (2007) Effects of speech noise on vocal fundamental frequency using power spectral analysis. Ear Hear 28(3):343–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Letowski T, Frank T, Caravella J (1993) Acoustical properties of speech produced in noise presented through supra-aural earphones. Ear Hear 14(5):332–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu H, Wang EQ, Metman LV, Larson CR (2012) Vocal response to perturbations in voice auditory feedback in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One 7(3):e33629. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Lombard E (1911) Le signe de l’élévation de la voix. Ann des Maladies d’Oreille Larynx Nez Pharynx 37:101–119Google Scholar
  32. Loucks TM, De Nil LF (2012) Oral sensorimotor integration in adults who stutter. Folia Phoniatr Logopaedica 64:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mu L, Sobotka S, Chen J, Su H, Sanders I et al (2013) Parkinson disease affects peripheral sensory nerves in the pharynx. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 72(7):614–623CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Nonaka S, Takahashi R, Enomoto K, Katada A, Unno T (1997) Lombard reflex during PAG-induced vocalization in decerebrate cats. Neurosci Res 29:283–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pick HL Jr, Siegel GM, Fox PW, Garber SR, Kearney JK (1989) Inhibiting the Lombard effect. J Acoust Soc Am 85(2):894–900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pickett JM (1956) Effects of vocal force on the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 28:902–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scheifele PM, Andrew S, Cooper RA, Darre M, Musiek FE et al (2005) Indication of a Lombard vocal response in the St. Lawrence River beluga. J Acoust Soc Am 117(3):1486–1492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schulman R (1989) Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J Acoust Soc Am 85(1):295–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Thierren AS, Lyons J, Balasubramaniam R (2012) Sensory attenuation of self-produced feedback: the Lombard effect revisited. PLoS ONE 7(11):e49370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tian X, Poeppel D (2012) Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models. Frontiers Psychol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tian X, Zarate JM, Poeppel D (2016) Mental imagery of speech implicates two mechanisms of perceptual reactivation. Cortex 77:1–12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Tian X, Ding N, Teng X, Bai F, Poeppel D (2018) Imagined speech influences perceived loudness of sound. Nat Hum Behav 2:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Titze IR (1992) Acoustic interpretation of the voice range profile (phonetogram). J Speech Hear Res 35:21–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Tressler J, Schwartz C, Wellman P, Hughes S, Smotherman M (2011) Regulation of bat echolocation pulse acoustics by striatal dopamine. J Exp Biol 214:3238–3247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Summers W, Pisoni DB, Bernacki RH, Pedlow RI, Stokes MA (1988) Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. J Acoust Soc Am 84(3):917–928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Zwislocki JJ, Goodman DA (1980) Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: a validation. Percept Psychophys 28:28–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication Sciences and DisordersOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Research on Brain, Language and MusicMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  3. 3.School of Communication Sciences and DisordersMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  4. 4.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations