July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

The following writing is my sixth response to the paper “Two Organizing Principles of Vocal Production: Implications for Nonhuman and Human Primates” by Owren, Amoss & Rendall (2010).

I grew up in Holland with a verbally and emotionally abusive father.  As an emotionally-troubled child my language skills were weak and the conflicts with my father, which became conflicts with my family, were characterized by loud, angry, impatient and punitive vocalizations. “The extensive experience needed in speaking a language means that humans routinely acquire comprehension skills before showing corresponding production capabilities, with the former often lying far in front.” My comprehension was often not that good as I was negatively affected by my forceful father.

“The phenomenon of dual neural pathways of vocalization thus exists across a diverse range of species.” It should come as no surprise that these “different pathways have different origins, evolving at different times and serving different functions.” Based on this evidence we should expect two kinds of talking: Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is believed to be based on the production-first system, whereas Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) is likely based the reception-first system.  

“In each case, a novel functionally distinct vocal capacity has evidently evolved in the presence of an existing system, thereby producing a new dissociated pathway.” This finding concurs with the Poly Vagal Theory described by Porges. He states “If the higher order parts of our nervous system detect risk, or danger, then this vagal calming response is retracted, and we immediately move to a physiological state that supports fight or

flight behaviors. The neural circuit that supports fight or flight behaviors is an older phylogenetic circuit that enables defenses to occur through increases in mobilization." 

Polyvagal Theory describes " a neural circuit that is only available when you are in a safe environment. It enables the face to work, to articulate, to be expressive. It also enables our voice to be prosodic and calming to others. Without awareness that we are doing this, we express safety cues to others and detect cues of safety from others.” 

Owren and Rendall write “In each case, a novel functionally distinct vocal capacity has evidently evolved in the presence of an existing system, thereby producing a new dissociated pathway. Although other outcomes could certainly be possible, modifying an existing vocal system so as to accommodate a novel form of vocalization may routinely be so disruptive that a parallel neural system becomes inevitable—particularly if the older vocalizations are of the production-first variety.” 

There must be two classes of vocal verbal behavior: one expressive of our safety and the other of mobilization behaviors.  SVB and NVB really exist.   

Polyvagal theory explains, that NVB is indeed “disruptive” even so much so that social behavior is inhibited when physiology is affected in such a way that the older system overrides the newer system. Giving social support is not the issue, according to Porges. “The real issue is whether the social interactions are appropriate for the physiological state of the individual and whether acts of social interaction are actually using the same neural pathways that support health, growth, and restoration. For example, if a sick person does not feel safe in the environment, then the “implementation” of social support as a treatment might be harmful, not helpful.” 

Therapists unknowingly often express NVB and consequently are harming their clients. People will make a big mistake if they think that knowing this information will  allow them to have more SVB. This information may make us more aware of how we interact, but only when we listen to ourselves while we speak will we be able to influence the “appropriate physiological state” which is “using the same neural pathways that support health, growth and restoration.” So, at best, this evidence from the Poly Vagal perspective and the research on primate vocalizations, is going to make us interested in learning about SVB and decreasing NVB. Since this can only happen in environments which make this conditioning possible, our focus should be how we create and maintain such environments.

Owren and Rendall believe the production-first and the reception-first system are based on pathways that “seem to interact, likely in quite complex ways.” They think that “even in humans the two systems can operate in “pure” form and apparent isolation, as illustrated by the occurrence of entirely spontaneous laughter and carefully controlled affect-free speech.”  

The latter indicates SVB in which there is no negative emotional constraint. Positive affective states don’t impair speech, rather, they are necessary to make social engagement behaviors possible. When we are talking about constraints, whether perceived or real threats, we refer to negative affective responses. The researchers distinguish “between limbically and cortically controlled acoustic modification.” NVB and SVB are conditioned in a respondent  and in an operant manner, respectively. “Limbic structures, such as the amygdala, are central in conditioned affect, a phenomenon that has in turn been a mainstay of operant and Pavlovian conditioning studies over many decades.”