Back

Motor signals modulate cortical but not subcortical processing of self-initiated sounds

Raiff, L.; Butler, G.; McFarlane, K.; Chandrasekaran, B.; Sitek, K. R.

2026-07-11 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.07.10.737812 bioRxiv
Show abstract

When we produce sounds ourselves, the brain modulates the auditory neural response through an efference copy mechanism, allowing us to distinguish between self-initiated and externally generated auditory inputs. However, the precise level of the auditory pathway at which this attenuation occurs remains unclear. While evidence from animal models suggests that early auditory processing of self-generated sounds may be modulated by corticofugal signaling, localized cortical modulation would preserve the high-fidelity subcortical sound encoding while allowing flexible, context-dependent processing at higher levels. To probe potential motor influences in the early auditory system, we collected scalp-recorded frequency following responses (FFRs) from 33 normal-hearing adults during active (self-initiated) and passive (externally presented) listening conditions using a 170 ms speech stimulus. Data were collected with a vertical montage that emphasizes subcortical generators of the FFR. We observed no significant differences in the FFR between active and passive conditions in spectral power, response amplitude, pitch tracking, onset latency, or phase consistency. In contrast, cortical event-related potentials showed motor-induced suppression (MIS): reduced early peak amplitudes in the active condition after correcting for motor signals, increased phase consistency prior to auditory feedback, and more precise phase consistency at sound offset. In addition to indicating FFRs can be collected during a wider range of behavioral tasks without substantial motor contamination, our observation of the canonical MIS in cortical signals but not in FFRs suggests that MIS of self-initiated sounds primarily affects later stages of auditory processing rather than the early encoding reflected in the FFR.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.6%
2
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 2%
7.7%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 9%
5.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.7%
5
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 28%
4.2%
6
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
7
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
8
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.1%
9
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
10
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
11
Hearing Research
54 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.1%
13
Current Biology
665 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.1%
14
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.4%
16
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 32%
1.0%
19
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
21
Trends in Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
22
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.6%
23
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 37%
0.6%
24
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%