Efficient communication can be achieved with precise production of speech sounds based on precise control of articulatory movement. Auditory and somatosensory feedback can be a basis for this precise control. In a recent study we showed that tongue posture was rapidly corrected following a tongue perturbation in which an external force pulled the tongue in the forward direction during a sustained vowel production. The spectral changes of the speech sound induced by the perturbation were also corrected toward the characteristics of the original sound. Since this quick compensatory response (< 140 ms for the movement change) was induced faster than a possible cortical auditory feedback loop, it may rely on the sole use of somatosensory inputs, which would then be tuned toward efficient auditory correction. To explore this hypothesis, we examined whether the quick compensatory response of the tongue can be modified by masking auditory feedback compared with normal auditory feedback condition. Eleven participants were tested. The experiment consisted of 150 trials. In each trial, the participants were asked to whisper vowel /e/ for a few seconds. In half of the trials a pink noise was presented to the participant through earphones as auditory masking. In the other half, normal auditory feedback was received (no auditory masking). The tongue perturbation was produced using a robotic device that applied a 1 Newton force in the forward direction during 1 second. The perturbation was applied in randomly selected 15 trials in each auditory condition. Articulatory movements were recorded using ElectroMagnetic Articulography (EMA) together and in synchronisation with the acoustic signal. EMA sensors were attached to the tongue tip, blade, and dorsum, the upper and lower lips and the lower jaw. For acoustical evaluation of the produced speech sound, the first three formant frequencies were extracted. All data were aligned at the perturbation onset and averaged across trials and participants. We extracted amplitude of compensatory response under the two auditory conditions and compared them with each other using Linear-Mixed Effect Model. We verified that a quick compensatory movement of the tongue was induced in response to the mechanical perturbation as shown in the previous study. No significant difference was found between the two auditory conditions in the amplitudes of compensatory movements. The compensation in formant frequencies are also similar between conditions. The results support our hypothesis that the observed quick feedback is somatosensory rather than auditory in nature, and suggests that a speech specific auditory-somatosensory mapping for this compensation learned during the speech acquisition period could underlie this process: thanks to this learned mapping auditory goals could be preserved using somatosensory feedback alone.