Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011
description
Transcript of Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011
![Page 1: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The influence of anticipation of communication failure on the likelihood
of stuttering
Does being misunderstood precipitate stuttering?
Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011
![Page 2: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What causes stuttering?
• Genetic predisposition• Environmental factors
Concordance•70% for monozygotic twins•30% for dizygotic twins
(Andrews et al. 1983; Felsenfeld et al., 2000)•18% for siblings of the same sex
(Andrews et al., 1983).
![Page 3: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What causes stuttering?
• Genetic predisposition• Environmental factors
Stuttering often co-occurs with mild language or speech production impairment – Slow language formulation evidence from priming studies
(e.g. Conture et al. 2004)– Imprecise articulation cinematic evidence
(e.g. Max Caruso, & Gracco, 2003)– Error prone production evidence from tonguetwisters –
(e.g. Brocklehurst & Corley, in press)
![Page 4: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
When does stuttering occur?
Capacities and demands model
• stuttering occurs at times of high cognitive / linguistic demands.
(e.g. Andrews et al., 1983; Starkweather, 1987)
...but this is probably not the complete story
![Page 5: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
When does stuttering occur?
Stuttering also occurs...
• When speaking one’s name
• When providing simple one-word answers
![Page 6: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
When does stuttering occur?
Stuttering also occurs...
• When speaking one’s name
• When providing simple one-word answers
– Single word utterances are easy to produce, but often
relatively difficult for the listener to decode (due to the
relative lack of redundancy)
![Page 7: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The role of anticipation
Anticipatory struggle hypothesis
• stuttering occurs when the speaker anticipates that the quality of his
speech may not be adequate to successfully fulfil its intended purpose.
Anticipation of stuttering (Johnson, 1942, 1959)
Anticipation of negative listener responses (Bloodstein 1958)
Anticipation of general difficulty speaking (Bloodstein 1975)
.
![Page 8: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The current study
• examines the role of anticipation of communication failure in precipitating stuttering.
• What happens when the listener appears to misunderstand - irrespective of how “well” the speaker speaks?
![Page 9: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The current study
• examines the role of anticipation of communication failure in precipitating stuttering.
• What happens when the listener appears to misunderstand - irrespective of how “well” the speaker speaks?
• What happens when the listener appears to understand correctly
- irrespective of how “badly” the speaker speaks?
![Page 10: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The current study
• examines the role of anticipation of communication failure in precipitating stuttering.
• What happens when the listener appears to misunderstand - irrespective of how “well” the speaker speaks?
• What happens when the listener appears to understand correctly
- irrespective of how “badly” the speaker speaks?
• 2 experiments... PWS and normally-fluent speakers
![Page 11: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
• 12 Participants who stutter
• speak single-syllable words into speech-recognition software*
Experiment 1
![Page 12: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• 12 Participants who stutter
• speak single-syllable words into speech-recognition software*
• they repeat each word four times (consecutively)
• visual feedback provided by speech-recognition software after each iteration.
Experiment 1
![Page 13: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Participants provide (before and after) self-ratings...• “do you think you will stutter on this word?”• “did you stutter on this word”
Iterations also recorded and rated by an independent coder (naive to the procedure)
Experiment 1
![Page 14: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
plod prod pod odd mod
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
Do you think you may stammer on this word?
no maybe yes
![Page 15: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Did you stammer?
no maybe yes
![Page 17: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
– wrong!
you said plod
0% correct so far
plod prod pod odd mod
![Page 18: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
– correct!
you said prod
25% correct so far
plod prod pod odd mod
![Page 19: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
The current experiment
Irrespective of participants’ actual performance, the software always...
• recognizes 72% of the words correctly
• Gets 28% of the words wrong
(They don’t know this!)
![Page 20: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The current experiment
Irrespective of participants’ actual performance, the software always...
• recognizes 72% of the words correctly
• Gets 28% of the words wrong
• £5 cash prize – if participant can score over 71% correct
![Page 21: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
2 experimental conditionsFeedback: “correct!” 16 words x 4 iterationsFeedback: “wrong!” * 16 words x 4 iterations
FillersFeedback: “correct!” 16 words x 4 iterations
* fourth iteration is occasionally correct.
Experiment 1
![Page 22: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
wick fan prod shrink mat
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
Do you think you may stammer on this word?
no maybe yes
![Page 23: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
our predictions
1 2 3 4Iteration
Stutt
erin
g lik
elih
ood
‘correct!’ visual feedback
‘wrong!’ visual feedback
![Page 24: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Results
1. Self reports • PWS• Normally-fluent speakers(Experiment 2)
2. Naive, independent-rater reports • PWS• Normally-fluent speakers (Experiment 2)
• Logistic (mixed effects) regression analyses (with likelihood of stuttering as the outcome variable)
![Page 25: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
no Maybe yes0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% fluent% stuttered
PWS’ predictions (made prior to iteration 1 )
Stutt
erin
g –
self
repo
rts
(iter
ation
s 1-4
)Do you think you may stammer?
Outcomes following PWS’ predictions
Significant main effects of PWS’ prior predictions***
12 Participants who stutter48 different words, each repeated four times by each participant.
***
***
![Page 26: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
1 2 3 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
PWS self-reports of stuttering
CorrectIncorrectFillers (correct)
iteration number
stutt
erin
g - s
elf r
epor
ts
Iteration X condition interaction*
Condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
condition
![Page 27: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
1 2 3 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
EXPERIMENT 2 – Normally-fluent speakers self-reports of difficulty speaking fluently
Correct
Incorrect
Fillers (correct)
iteration number
fluen
cy-d
ifficu
lty -
self
repo
rts
Condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
condition
![Page 28: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Codings by an independent rater
Coder... • was naive to the purpose and procedure of
the experiment.• has a family member who stutters.
![Page 29: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
1 2 3 40
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PWS naive-coder reports of stuttering(including prolongations)
CorrectIncorrectFillers (correct)
iteration number
stutt
ers
condition
![Page 30: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
1 2 3 40
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PWS naive-coder reports of(including prolongations)
CorrectIncorrectFillers (correct)
iteration number
stutt
ers
Iteration X condition interaction*
condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
condition
![Page 31: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
1 2 3 40
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PWS naive-coder reports of stuttering(excluding prolongations)
CorrectIncorrectFillers (correct)
iteration number
stutt
ers
Main effect of condition *Marginal main effect of iteration p<.10No interaction
condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
condition
![Page 32: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
1 2 3 40
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Normally-fluent speakers naive-coder reports of stuttering
(including prolongations)
CorrectIncorrectFillers (correct)
iteration number
stutt
ers
condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
condition
![Page 33: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
condition
1 2 3 40
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Normally-fluent speakers naive-coder reports of stuttering
(excluding prolongations)
CorrectIncorrectFillers (correct)
iteration number
stutt
ers
![Page 34: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Summary – self-reports (PWS)For PWS, the likelihood of self-reporting having stuttered on a word...
• increased when, prior to the first iteration, the speaker anticipated that he would stutter.
• decreased across iterations when the feedback was ‘correct’ but not when it was ‘incorrect’
![Page 35: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Summary – naive rater reportsFor both PWS and normally-fluent speakers, the likelihood of being rated as having stuttered on a word...
• increased across iterations. – (main effect – mainly due to prolongations)
• increased across iterations even more when the feedback is incorrect.
![Page 36: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Conclusions
• PWS stutter more when they think their words are not being
recognised
• Normally-fluent speakers do not show the same pattern
![Page 37: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Conclusions• Speakers attempt to make words easier to recognise by
purposefully prolonging and/or emphasising key phonemes.
• Even in normally-fluent speakers, attempts to render words easier to recognise may be interpreted by a (naive) listener as stuttering.
![Page 38: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Conclusions• Findings suggest stuttering is reinforced by repeated
experiences of failure to make oneself understood.
• In real life there could be many reasons for experiencing such failure...– Impaired speech production– Impaired listener comprehension– Misleading feedback/cues from listener– a combination of the above
![Page 39: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Further thoughts
• The results are consistent with the Vicious Circle Hypothesis (Vasić & Wijnen, 2005)
– Perhaps feedback suggesting listener miscomprehension...• Increases the vigilance of self-monitoring• Decreases the threshold for initiation of error repair
– It may also influence the focus of monitoring• More focus on words with similar neighbours
![Page 40: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Further thoughts
• The results are consistent with a (modified) EXPLAN Hypothesis (Howell, 2003)
– Perhaps feedback suggesting listener miscomprehension...• Leads to an increased articulatory-buffer release threshold • (excessively) delaying onset of speech.
![Page 41: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
The Edinburgh Disfluency Group http://edgwiki.wikidot.com
Researching disfluency from a psycholinguistic perspective:
• Language and speech encoding– Grammar– Phonology– Phonetics
• A general interest in– Speech errors– Speech-error repair
and avoidance mechanisms
![Page 42: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
The role of anticipation
Anticipatory struggle hypothesis (Bloodstein 1958)...
• In the last analysis, neither excessive demands for fluency nor the occurrence of many repetitions in the child’s speech are absolutely necessary in order for struggle reactions to develop. The essential condition for stuttering is simply the child’s belief that communication is an arduous process and that he must put his back into it. (p31)
– Stuttering characterised by “tension and fragmentation”
![Page 43: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
1 2 3 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
PWS self-reports of stuttering across 4 iterations and 2 feedback conditions
Correct
Incorrect
Fillers (correct)
iteration number
stutt
erin
g - s
elf r
epor
ts
Condition Word recognized options cue
‘correct’ HEART art heart cart Bart art a vital organ
‘incorrect’ PLOD plod prod pod odd mod Push with a finger or stick
Fillers GRAVE wick fan grave shrink mat Where someone is buried
condition
![Page 44: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
ReferencesAndrews, G., Hoddinott, S., Craig, A., Howie, P., Feyer, A.-M., & Neilson, M. (1983). Stuttering: A
Review of Research Findings and Theories circa 1982. J Speech Hear Disord, 48(3), 226-246.Bloodstein, O. (1958). Stuttering as an anticipatory struggle reaction. In J. Eisenson (Ed.),
Stuttering: A symposium (pp. 3-69). New York: Harper & Row.Bloodstein, O. (1975). Stuttering as tension and fragmentation. In J. Eisenson (Ed.), Stuttering: A
second symposium (pp. 1-96). New York: Harper & Row.Brocklehurst, P. H., & Corley, M. Investigating the inner speech of people who stutter: Evidence
for (and against) the Covert Repair Hypothesis. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.11.004]. Journal of Communication Disorders, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Conture, E., Zackheim, C., Anderson, J., & Pellowski, M. (2004). Linguistic processes and childhood stuttering: many's a slip between intention and lip. In B. Maassen, R. Kent, H. Peters, P. v. Lieshout & W. Hulstijn (Eds.), Speech motor control in normal and disordered speech (pp. 253-281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felsenfeld, S., Kirk, K., Zhu, G., Statham, D., Neale, M., & Martin, N. (2000). A study of the genetic and environmental etiology of stuttering in a selected twin sample. Behavior Genetics, 30(5), 359-366.
Howell, P. (2003). Is a perceptual monitor needed to explain how speech errors are repaired?Howell, P., & Au-Yeung, J. (2002). The EXPLAN theory of fluency control applied to the diagnosis of
stuttering. Clinical linguistics: Theory and applications in speech pathology and therapy, 75–94.
![Page 45: Paul Brocklehurst, Martin Corley, & Robin Lickley February 2011](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/568166ff550346895ddb644b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
ReferencesJohnson, W. (1942). A study of the onset and development of stuttering. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 7(3), 251.Johnson, W., & Associates, a. (1959). The onset of stuttering. Minneapolis MI: University of
Minnesota press.Max, L., Caruso, A., & Gracco, V. (2003). Kinematic analyses of speech, orofacial nonspeech, and
finger movements in stuttering and nonstuttering adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(1), 215.
Postma, A., & Kolk, H. (1993). The covert repair hypothesis: prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. J Speech Hear Res, 36(3), 472-487.
Starkweather, C. (1987). Fluency and stuttering: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Vasić, N., & Wijnen, F. (2005). Stuttering as a monitoring deficit. In R. J. Hartsuiker, Y. Bastiaanse,
A. Postma & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 226–247). Hove, East Sussex Psychology Press.