An interventional study of Altered Auditory Feedback (AAF) and Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback in Healthy Volunteers and Speech, sponsored by New York University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 45 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-05.
Sponsored by New York University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
This study examines whether individual differences in how speakers respond to hearing versus physical sensation during speech can predict who benefits most from visual feedback during a speech task. Healthy adults will complete a series of tasks in which auditory feedback is altered in real time through headphones, with and without an added visual display of the speech signal. A computational model will be used to estimate how strongly each participant relies on hearing versus physical sensation when monitoring speech. The study will then test whether this individual profile predicts how much the visual display improves each participant's ability to respond to the altered feedback.
During speech, the brain relies on multiple sources of feedback, including auditory input and physical sensations from the tongue and lips, to monitor and adjust speech in real time. People differ in how much they rely on each of these feedback sources, and these individual differences may predict who benefits most from different types of technological support for speech learning.
This study examines whether a computational model of individual response to sensory feedback can predict how much a person benefits from the addition of real-time visual feedback during a speech task. Participants will complete a series of tasks in which auditory feedback of speech is altered in real time through headphones. A computational model is then used to estimate how strongly each participant relies on hearing versus physical sensation when monitoring speech. Participants then repeat the task with an added visual display showing the speech signal alongside a target, providing an additional source of feedback.
The primary question is whether the computational profile of sensory feedback use - specifically, whether a person relies more heavily on hearing or on physical sensation - predicts how much the visual display improves each participant's ability to respond to the altered feedback.
At baseline, participants complete two versions of an altered auditory feedback (AAF) task without visual feedback. The first uses a "fast adapt" design in which altered feedback is introduced and withdrawn repeatedly across short experimental runs; the second uses a standard adaptive design in which the altered feedback is introduced once and maintained for a longer run. Performance in both tasks is submitted to SimpleDIVA computational modeling to estimate participant-specific auditory and somatosensory response parameters. The use of two task variants allows evaluation of the stability of parameter estimates across elicitation conditions.
Participants then complete a standard adaptive AAF task with simultaneous real-time visual-acoustic biofeedback. The visual display presents the current audio playback signal (i.e., the altered signal) alongside a visual target derived from the participant's baseline production. The primary outcome measure is visual gain, defined as the within-participant difference in compensation magnitude between the auditory-visual feedback condition and the auditory-only condition of the standard adaptive AAF task.
The primary analysis uses linear regression to test whether SimpleDIVA parameters from the baseline phase predict the magnitude of visual gain. The predictor of primary interest is the ratio of auditory to total sensory weighting, reflecting the relative dominance of auditory versus somatosensory feedback. Baseline compensation magnitude in the auditory-only condition will be included as a covariate. A paired-samples t-test will also evaluate the overall effect of adding visual feedback on compensation magnitude across the sample.
205 studies on the registry are indexed under Speech; 80 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 40 is below the median of 52 across 141 interventional studies indexed under Speech.
Browse Speech studies →New York University is the lead sponsor of 123 studies on the registry; 32 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
All participants complete altered auditory feedback tasks without visual feedback (baseline phase) followed by the same task with simultaneous real-time visual-acoustic biofeedback. Both conditions are administered within a single study visit.
Behavioral: Altered Auditory Feedback (AAF) · Behavioral: Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback
Participants produce speech while hearing real-time altered auditory feedback delivered through headphones. Two task variants are administered: a fast-adapt design in which the altered feedback is introduced and withdrawn repeatedly, and a standard adaptive design in which the altered feedback is introduced once and maintained for an extended run. Administered to all participants as the baseline condition.
Participants perform the standard adaptive auditory feedback task with the addition of real-time visual display. The visual display presents the altered auditory signal alongside a visual target derived from the participant's baseline production. Administered to all participants following the auditory-only baseline phase.
Mean difference in F1 compensation magnitude between auditory-visual and auditory-only feedback conditions of standard adaptive feedback task
Visual gain is defined as the within-participant difference in acoustic compensation magnitude (measured from formant frequencies) between the auditory-visual feedback condition and the auditory-only condition of the standard adaptive feedback task. Greater visual gain indicates a larger compensatory response when visual feedback is available.
Time frame: During study visit (Day 1)
Plan to share: Yes — Complete de-identified data and scripts to reproduce analyses reported in study manuscripts
Supporting information: Analytic code
Time frame: Data will be shared within 1 year of the study end date and will be made available indefinitely.
Access criteria: Publicly accessible
Data sharing details ↗ · osf.io
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from Apr 2026 to primary completion in Aug 2026, 3 months.
Of 85 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Speech, half reached primary completion within 45 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 14 and three quarters within 65. This study's 3 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 90 studies reached it within 45 months; a quarter within 15 and three quarters within 65.
Completion moved once since we started tracking on Sep 25, 2026: Nov 2026 → Aug 2026, on Nov 2, 2026.
Earlier changes are on the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.