Literature DB >> 32953925

Processing of Self-Repairs in Stuttered and Non-Stuttered Speech.

Matthew W Lowder1, Nathan D Maxfield2, Fernanda Ferreira3.   

Abstract

Previous research suggests that listeners can use the presence of speech disfluencies to predict upcoming linguistic input. But how is the processing of typical disfluencies affected when the speaker also produces atypical disfluencies, as in the case of stuttering? We addressed this question in a visual-world eye-tracking experiment in which participants heard self-repair disfluencies while viewing displays that contained a predictable target entity. Half the participants heard the sentences spoken by a speaker who stuttered, and half heard the sentences spoken by the same speaker who produced the sentences without stuttering. Results replicated previous work in demonstrating that listeners engage in robust predictive processing when hearing self-repair disfluencies. Crucially, the magnitude of the prediction effect was reduced when the speaker stuttered compared to when the speaker did not stutter. Overall, the results suggest that listeners' ability to model the production system of a speaker is disrupted when the speaker stutters.

Entities:  

Keywords:  disfluencies; eye movements; prediction; repairs; stuttering

Year:  2019        PMID: 32953925      PMCID: PMC7500508          DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1628284

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 2327-3798            Impact factor:   2.331


  37 in total

1.  Listener perceptions along a fluency--disfluency continuum: a phenomenological analysis.

Authors:  Michael Susca; E Charles Healey
Journal:  J Fluency Disord       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.538

2.  The neural integration of speaker and message.

Authors:  Jos J A Van Berkum; Danielle van den Brink; Cathelijne M J Y Tesink; Miriam Kos; Peter Hagoort
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.

Authors:  Dale J Barr; Roger Levy; Christoph Scheepers; Harry J Tily
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.059

4.  Toddlers use speech disfluencies to predict speakers' referential intentions.

Authors:  Celeste Kidd; Katherine S White; Richard N Aslin
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2011-04-14

5.  Limits on lexical prediction during reading.

Authors:  Steven G Luke; Kiel Christianson
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  I see what you meant to say: Anticipating speech errors during online sentence processing.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2018-12-17

7.  Listener perceptions of stuttering across two presentation modes: a quantitative and qualitative approach.

Authors:  James Panico; E Charles Healey; Kyle Brouwer; Michael Susca
Journal:  J Fluency Disord       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.538

8.  Stuttered and fluent speakers' heart rate and skin conductance in response to fluent and stuttered speech.

Authors:  Jianliang Zhang; Joseph Kalinowski; Tim Saltuklaroglu; Daniel Hudock
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.020

9.  Emotional and physiological responses of fluent listeners while watching the speech of adults who stutter.

Authors:  Vijaya K Guntupalli; D Erik Everhart; Joseph Kalinowski; Chayadevie Nanjundeswaran; Tim Saltuklaroglu
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.020

10.  Why um helps auditory word recognition: the temporal delay hypothesis.

Authors:  Martin Corley; Robert J Hartsuiker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.