The brain continuously monitors speech output to detect potential errors between its sensory prediction and its sensory production (Daliri et al., 2020). When the brain encounters an error, it generates a corrective motor response, usually in the opposite direction, to reduce the effect of the error. Previous studies have shown that the type of auditory error received may impact a participant’s corrective response. In this study, we examined whether participants respond differently to categorical or non-categorical errors. We applied two types of perturbation in real-time by shifting the first formant (F1) and second formant (F2) at three different magnitudes. The vowel /ɛ/ was shifted toward the vowel /æ/ in the categorical perturbation condition. In the non-categorical perturbation condition, the vowel /ɛ/ was shifted to a sound outside of the vowel quadrilateral (increasing both F1 and F2). Our results showed that participants responded to the categorical perturbation while they did not respond to the non-categorical perturbation. Additionally, we found that in the categorical perturbation condition, as the magnitude of the perturbation increased, the magnitude of the response increased. Overall, our results suggest that the brain may respond differently to categorical and non-categorical errors, and the brain is highly attuned to errors in speech.

This study examines the effectiveness of two modes of exercise on inhibitory control in adults with Down Syndrome (DS). Thirteen participants attended four sessions: a baseline assessment, an Assisted Cycling Therapy (ACT) session, a Resistance Training (RT) session, and a session of No Training (NT). In the baseline assessment, 1-repetition max (1RM) measurements and voluntary pedal rate measurements were taken. In the resistance training session, the leg press, chest press, seated row, leg curl, shoulder press, and latissimus pulldown were performed. In the cycling intervention, the participant completed 30 minutes of cycling. The Erikson Flanker task was administered prior to each session (i.e., pretest) and after the intervention (i.e., post-test). The results were somewhat consistent with the hypothesis that inhibition time improved more following RT and ACT than NT. there was also a significant difference between ACT and NT. Additionally, it was hypothesized that all measures would improve following each acute exercise intervention, but the most significant improvements were seen following ACT. In conclusion, an acute session of ACT demonstrated a significant trend towards improvements in inhibitory control in adults with DS which we interpreted using a model of neural changes.