July 28, 2015

July 28, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

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

Among primates as well as among humans “factors such as the presence, relative rank, or likely response of nearby animals, are so basic as to have shaped vocal behavior in that species from its very beginnings.” Such differences are of notable “affective importance,” in other words, “arguing for specifically cognitive control of vocal output in those situations requires ruling out affective confounds, which has not been done.” 

Also humans we have not yet taken into account the affective confounds, which cause Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and undermine relationships. Moreover, the argument “for specifically cognitive control” always involves verbal fixation, which prevents our voice from resonating. Hierarchical differences among humans set the stage for NVB. We have to be on guard towards everyone who sounds aversive. Such vigilance makes us outward oriented and prevents us from paying attention to negative private speech.

Threats from more powerful human beings, whom we can’t escape or avoid, always result in our internal struggle. Since this outer struggle is bound to fail and often even impossible, NVB public speech burdens us with negative self-talk, that is, with NVB private speech. Thus, 1) fixation on words, 2) outward orientation, and 3) conflict (between overt and covert speech, but also between one person and another) changes the sound of our voice. 

When we are stressed, frustrated, lost, sad, confused, overwhelmed, impatient, coerced, we sound that way. Just as monkeys “produce fewer vocalization than expected” in certain situations in the presence of particular individuals, so too do humans “volitionally suppress spontaneously affect triggered facial and vocal expressions through a process of “top-down” inhibition.” The possibility of “affective and behavioral resonance” is only available during SVB. There is evidence that “otherwise differentiated systems of producing and responding to a given behavior can exert reciprocal effects on underlying neurophysiological organization.” 

If animals can exert such effects, humans should be able to do the same. The landmark finding in this area was the discovery of primate ‘‘mirror-neuron’’ systems that are activated both by seeing an object or an action performed, and by acting on that object or performing the same action.” Such mirror-neuron systems exist in humans as well and we can only become aware of their workings when our voice sounds empathic.   

The authors conclude that “humans exhibit both a primate-like affect-triggered limbic pathway and an additional, cortically controlled, volitional vocal system. This phenomenon of parallel neural pathways in vocal production occurs across a variety of species and may represent a general outcome in evolution.” Recognition of these vocalizations in humans must involve acknowledgement of NVB and SVB. These are names given to these two cross-species occurring classes of vocal verbal behavior. 

The authors focus on primates, but I want to emphasize human vocalization, specifically that we affectively influence each other with the sound of our voice.  Like primates, we also adjust our voice to noise in our environment. This is the Lombart Effect. Indeed, we can have SVB in a noisy, aversive environments. It is our voice with which we create our environmental niche. This is particularly evident in the speaker-as-own-listener. The speaker is the only one who has excess to what happens within his or her own skin. 

“Studies with both squirrel monkeys and decerebrate domestic cats have indeed shown that the Lombard effect is mediated at the brainstem level, meaning its occurrence is likely uninformative with respect to the operation of higher level vocal control systems.” That the Lombart Effect is mediated at the brainstem level shows that in SVB no immobilization response is activated, because there is no immanent threat. 

In SVB the opposite of freezing or death feigning occurs. Although there may be a noisy and threatening environment, no activation of the immobilization response occurs, no fight or flight response is triggered. Instead the mobilization response is down-regulated. Thus, even in an aversive environment, SVB can occur.   

The authors conclusion that “although top–down cortical effects are likely important in some instances, even if these do not alter the conclusion that production is fundamentally affective in nature” is important to humans. 

“Although top–down cortical effects are likely important in some instances, even these do not alter the conclusion that production is fundamentally affective in nature. Finally, much of the evidence of convergence or divergence of calling across individuals or groups can also be explained without invoking volitional effects or cortical control.” More than we are due to our NVB capable of admitting, we are determined in our talking by affective experiences. Moreover, negative affective experiences impair our social engagement, while positive affective experiences are necessary to make social engagement possible. This is why SVB has to be established.

The authors end their paper with a salute to Darwin, to emphasize that “the single strongest commonality between primate and human vocal production lies in the central role that affect and the limbic system can have in both.” Their data “are indisputably indicative of evolutionary continuity not only among great apes and humans, but also among all primates and perhaps all mammals.” However, “vocal flexibility and volitional control” which is “so often sought in primates is largely absent while strikingly clear in humans.”

There is evidence for evolutionary continuity, the “reception-first system”, second pathway in addition to the “production-first system.”And, there are “neural phenomena in birds” similar to human vocal control, which indicate that “the beginnings of that new pathway may have already been present in a common ancestor from long ago.” Darwin was as right 140 years ago. 

His views about the “central role of affect in animal communication” are supported by these researchers. Humans evolved with neural structures, which in many ways are similar to primates and which explain why we talk the way we do. The only reason we haven’t progressed much further than Darwin’s claim, is because we are without knowing it dominated by NVB. 

If researchers themselves would have had SVB, progress would have been  made much faster. It  is in the name of our scientific endeavors that SVB needs to be addressed, taught and maintained. And if we are to survive as a culture, as a species, we need to have authentic human interaction.   

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.”

July 26, 2015

July 26, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

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

“Affect-triggered primate and human vocalizations” form the first system that is recognized by these authors. They refer to such vocalizations as “production-first’’ development” that is characterized “by the emergence of acoustically and contextually appropriate vocalizations even in the absence of significant experience in hearing or producing the sounds.” The second system is “spoken language in humans alone” and is termed “”reception- first’’ development, with both vocal acoustics and usage showing specific dependence on prior experience, including both in hearing the sounds from others and in practicing their production.” The authors are “however, not arguing that experience with vocalizations plays no role whatsoever in production-first development nor that reception-first systems are immune to constraints associated with factors such as phylogenetic history, the details of species-typical vocal anatomy, and the like.” 

In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) it can be said that we are least constrained by phylogenetic factors, but in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) we most impaired by phylogenetic factors. These researchers organized primate vocalization with a “production-first vs reception-first system” and their system can and should also be applied to human vocal verbal behavior. 

The authors provided an “organizational framework for understanding the many different kinds of phenomena found in primate vocal behavior.” Thiss biological approach is needed to sort out unaddressed problems of human vocal behavior. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which is based on the “production-first system”, is not really communication; it is domination, intimidation, coercion and verbal abuse. Only Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), based on the “reception-first system” can make us interact.  

 

“Auditory experience and motor practice” don’t matter at all during NVB, they only matter during SVB. Thus, when these authors state that “the unimportance of experience is specific to the sound production component of primate vocal behavior”, they refer to NVB. After they explain the difference between the "production-first" and "reception-first system", the authors note that “Both primate calling and spontaneous affect-triggered human vocalizations are thus production-first systems, whereas spoken language represents reception-first development.”  

By studying primate vocalization we can learn something that is crucially important about human vocal verbal behavior: we distinguish between SVB and NVB. “The goal here is to more easily separate the roles that experience can play in production-first vs. reception-first systems, particularly to avoid conflating the two.” Moreover, if we consider that “auditory experience and motor practice play a little role in producing the sounds” in young vervet alarm calls, (which are similar to  a human baby crying for its mother) and that “young vervets show a clear “narrowing” effect or “tuning effect” in call usage”, we learn that NVB is maintained by habituation. 

Human vocalizations are effected by language. Only when parents are producing SVB are they capable of talking and willing to talk with their kids. However, if parents are having themselves all sorts of negative affective experiences, the baby will habituate to their NVB and grows up to be as insensitive and dissociative in their interaction as them. 

“Habituation is the simplest and most ubiquitous form of true learning, referring to a decrease in responsiveness to a repeated stimulus that has no functional significance. For example, a young child that is initially startled and frightened by bearded men can lose that reaction by learning that seeing facial hair is not followed by negative outcomes.” The authors give a visual rather than an auditory example of the pairing of stimuli. An auditory example would be more useful as they are discussing vocalizations. 

This common bias for visual sensory experience is the main reason why affective auditory phenomena have been given short shrift for such a long time. Threat vocalizations will also become linked with visual stimuli. A child is less likely startled by a friendly-sounding bearded man, but if his or her father happens to be a noxious-sounding bearded man, he or she will habituate to him, because he or she can’t just move away. 

“Although a variety of both predator-related and non-predator-related stimuli may thus initially trigger active reactions and alarm-calling in vervet infants, only the former are followed by negative outcomes or vocalizations from others. The latter provoke nothing other than the infant’s own response, leading to stimulus-specific decreases in subsequent affective reactivity.” Thus, the abusive vocalizations by a father may trigger the predator-related alarm calls in the infant, but the vocalizations by other family members may “provoke nothing other than the infant’s own response, leading to stimulus-specific decreases in subsequent affective reactivity.” This explains why the abusive father can continue, because family members influence each other to vocally give in to him. It is important to note this discussion is about the production-first system. 

Responding to alarm calls is quite different matter. “Here, learning and cognitive representation probably play central roles, with a youngster’s initial undifferentiated startle reactions upon hearing calls likely facilitating the ensuing gradual development of flexible situation-dependent escape strategies.” When we say “cognitive representation,” we talk about the verbal behavior taught to us by a verbal community. The responses which are mediated by the production-first system are not taught by our verbal community as they are innate. “In a reception-first system, infants would need to learn not only how to respond to calls and associated predators, but also critical features of the various species, how to produce acoustically appropriate vocalizations, and which calls to produce in a given circumstance.” Thus, NVB is believed to be “vocal production” that is “a highly constrained limbically dominated process”, while SVB which involves “hearing calls", that is, listening, "brings the entire brain into play.”

July 25, 2015

July 25, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

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

"Pygmy marmoset (Cebuella pygmaea) vocal development is similar to that of humans in also showing a stage of babbling-like vocal behavior. In this species, calling typically begins in the first week of life, with infants producing spontaneous on-going streams of vocalizations that routinely juxtapose sounds that do not typically co-occur later in life.” 

Like humans, pygmy marmosets become more autonomous over the course of development and this changes the way in which they sound. Their loud and needy “shrieks, screams and squeaks”, gradually decreases as they become socialized to produce more “sonants and gruffs.” In humans, this change of sound is usually accompanied by the learning of language. 

Decrease of aversive sounding vocalizations in humans happens only to the extent that one has become a successful member of one’s verbal community. “As in humans, the marmosets make these sounds in the absence of obvious triggering stimuli. Unlike human infants, however, the monkeys produce recognizable versions of adult calls from the very beginning, with no evidence that auditory experience or motor practices are needed."

"Furthermore, although human babbling begins simply and becomes more complex, marmosets show the opposite trend. These animals begin with greater complexity (streams of species-typical and other sounds), then simplify and individuate the various calls later.” In humans an increase of complexity as a fine-tuning of vocal verbal behavior occurs.  

This research made the authors conclude that “some biologically grounded motivational process is involved and that the sounds provide important self-stimulating effects of some kind.” Human vocal verbal behavior is also grounded in “some biologically grounded motivational process” because our own voice provides “important self-stimulating effects of some kind.” However, this effect is only believed to occur in SVB, not in NVB. It cannot occur in NVB as the voice of the sender has not only a negative influence on the other person as the receiver, but in NVB the speaker is unknowingly and negatively effecting him or herself.

Neural evidence on primate vocalizations tells us what must also be true for humans: “The major finding is that subcortical, limbic-system structures are central in vocal production not only in monkeys and apes, but also across mammals in general.” There is “a virtual consensus among neuroscientists there are clear parallels between species-typical primate calling and human emotional vocalizations, such as spontaneous laughter and crying”, because humans have the same “affectively driven and limbically centered control system found in primates.” 

However, the picture is quite different for volitional control of human vocalization. The reader is reminded that only SVB is under volitional control. “Although speech production does show important subcortical involvement and affective influences, central aspects, such as motor planning and execution, are unambiguously cortical functions." This “subcortical involvement” either involves positive or negative affective influences.  In NVB there are negative affective influences, but in SVB there are positive affective influences. NVB is therefore a form of  coercive control, while SVB is always based on positive reinforcement.

Only as long as we keep fixating on the fact that we are different from primates, because we have language, is it “difficult to make substantive connections between vocal ontogeny in primates and spoken language development in humans.” If we pay attention to the fact that humans, like primates, produce sounds while they speak, we will be able to make these “connections.” Because of our language we are again and again inclined to keep focusing on how we are different from primates. 

The SVB/NVB distinction explains why “the unimportance of experience

is specific to the sound production component” of primate vocal behavior. Primates cannot, like humans, describe the sound of others and also cannot  describe their own sound to themselves. In other words, primates experience without having a verbal description of their own experience. However, this doesn’t mean their production of sound is not experienced. It simply means that it is not experienced as we humans do: by being verbal about it. 

“Not surprisingly, although acoustics, usage, and responding are all highly modifiable in human speech, characteristics of spontaneous, affect-triggered human vocalizations closely parallel those of primate calls in this regard as well.” Owren and Rendall are on the right track to acknowledge SVB and NVB in humans, a distinction that is based on how we sound while we speak. They differentiate between “affect-triggered primate and human vocalizations on the one hand and spoken language in humans alone on the other”, which, “indicate that fundamentally different systems are involved.”