The influence of anticipation of communication failure on the likelihood of stuttering Does being...
-
Upload
noel-glenn -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of The influence of anticipation of communication failure on the likelihood of stuttering Does being...
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
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).
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)
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
When does stuttering occur?
Stuttering also occurs...
• When speaking one’s name
• When providing simple one-word answers
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)
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)
.
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?
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?
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
• 12 Participants who stutter
• speak single-syllable words into speech-recognition software*
Experiment 1
• 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
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
plod prod pod odd mod
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
Do you think you may stammer on this word?
no maybe yes
Did you stammer?
no maybe yes
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
– wrong!
you said plod
0% correct so far
plod prod pod odd mod
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
– correct!
you said prod
25% correct so far
plod prod pod odd mod
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!)
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
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
wick fan prod shrink mat
Cue:
– Push with a finger or stick
Do you think you may stammer on this word?
no maybe yes
our predictions
1 2 3 4Iteration
Stutt
erin
g lik
elih
ood
‘correct!’ visual feedback
‘wrong!’ visual feedback
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)
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.
***
***
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
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
Codings by an independent rater
Coder... • was naive to the purpose and procedure of
the experiment.• has a family member who stutters.
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
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
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
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
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
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’
Summary – naive rater reports
For 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.
Conclusions
• PWS stutter more when they think their words are not being
recognised
• Normally-fluent speakers do not show the same pattern
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.
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
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
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.
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
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”
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
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.
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.