Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
35 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is adaptation? |
The tendency for stuttering frequency to gradually decrease during repeated readings of the same text
Overall - more than half of stuttering disappears in most subjects after 5 readings--but then they don't improve any further in terms of frequency of stuttering --> a plateau |
|
|
What is the suggested formula for calculating adaptation? |
(R1-R5) / R1 * 100 = the percent decrease in frequency of stuttering
where R5 = number of stuttered words during reading 5 R1 = number of stuttered words during reading 1 |
|
|
What was Van Riper's explanation for adaptation (based on his research findings in 1934) and how was it disproven? |
Van Riper said that adaptation occurred because over the repeated readings, individuals adapted to the situation and therefore stuttered less
BUT: *Johnson & Inness (1938) = more adaptation occurs during repeated readings of the same material than during continued readings of varying material --> they concluded that individuals adapted to the content rather than the situation
*Donohue (1955) - obtained similar results |
|
|
What are some other variables that were changed in adaptation studies and how did each affect adaptation? |
1) Increasing length of passage - no difference found in amount of adaptation 2) Increasing audience size for each successive reading - reduced the amount of adaptation, but it still occurred 3) Increasing time interval between each successive reading - adaptation still occurred but progressively less (for 15 min interval and 30 min interval); no adaptation for 24 hr interval 4) R1 = read aloud, baseline; R2, R3, R4 = silent reading with no oral movements; R5 = read aloud, compare to R1 - no adaptation 5) Silent reading with lipped movements or whispered reading in R2, R3, R4 - reduced or no adaptation 6) Hearing someone else read the passage on R2, R3, R4 - no adaptation |
|
|
Describe the Adams & Reis (1971) study looking at adaptation in a normal voiced-voiceless passage vs. in an all voiced passage |
Rationale: thought if they eliminated the need to coordinate laryngeal movements with articulatory movements (b/c no laryngeal abduction for voiceless consonants), this would increase adaptation
Results: they did find more adaptation occurring for all voiced passage, and they concluded that individuals who stutter must have difficulties with on-off transitions of voice
BUT WAIT - notice that in their study, there was the same amount of stuttering in R1 for both the voiced-voiceless and the all voiced passages - shouldn't there be less stuttering even on R1 for the all voiced passage if the reason people stutter is because of difficulties with on-off transitions of voice?
Better explanation - the simplified task (i.e., the all voiced passage) leads to faster improvement in repeated practice--that is to say, it's easier for stuttering individuals to learn to be more fluent in this task |
|
|
What is "spontaneous recovery" from the adaptation effect? |
That is what people call the increase in stuttering again after a period of time after the multiple readings - the return or "recovery" to the natural state of stuttering
Note that spontaneous recovery is still incomplete after 0.5 hour, 1 hour, 1.5 hours, 24 hours, and even 10 days (if more repeated readings occurred in the first place) |
|
|
What are 6 theoretical explanations of the adaptation effect? |
1) Experimental extinction = whatever it is that rewards stuttering is not there in adaptation procedure, so no "reinforcement" for stuttering, and therefore the person stops stuttering (a circular explanation)
2) Anxiety deconfirmation = the person who stutters doesn't experience other people's negative reactions to stuttering in this experimental situation, so they have less anxiety about it with each repeated reading, and this reduces stuttering
3) Stuttering itself is fear reducing = the more you stutter, the less you'll be afraid of stuttering
4) Reactive inhibition = the inhibiting effect of fatigue or boredom on the response to a stimulus--so the more times the person does the task, the more bored they get, and the less likely they are to stutter
5) Reduced propositionality = reduced meaningfulness of content with each repeated reading, meaning the speaker cares less about the content and less likely to stutter; but this was not supported by research showing there's no adaptation with silent reading or listening to someone else read the passage
6) Rehearsal of the motor plan/motor learning = they get better because they practiced |
|
|
Describe the Max, Caruso & Vandevenne (1997) study that looked at adaptation and used choral reading. Why did they use choral reading and what were the results? |
They used choral reading because they wanted to be able to separate out whether adaptation might be occurring as a result of a reaction to repeated stuttering, or as a result of repeated practice.
We would know more if we could set up experiment where they do not even stutter on that first reading, which would mean that any adaptation occurring couldn't be because of some kind of reaction to repeated stuttering (which is what 5 of the 6 above theoretical explanations above point to) but instead because of the repeated practice (as in explanation 6, the motor learning explanation)
So through choral reading, participants were able to practice the reading without stuttering. They were then compared to participants who just did a standard adaptation task (6 repeated readings). The same amount of adaptation occurred in both conditions!! |
|
|
What is the consistency effect? What is the most likely explanation? |
Phenomenon related to adaptation, the tendency to stutter on the same words you did in previous readings (about 65% of words stuttered were also stuttered on previous readings) - but according to Dr. Max, this is "boring and may even be a hoax" - occurrence depends on frequency of stuttering in the first place; more severe stutterers will always be more "consistent"
Most likely explanation is Brown's word weights; certain words are most likely to be stuttered on, so of course the same ones would be stuttered on in repeated readings of the same passage |
|
|
List fluency-enhancing conditions. |
Speaking when alone *Speaking at a reduced rate *Speaking in time to a rhythmic stimulus (metronome effect) = have to actually time speech to the stimulus (not just have it going in background), can be any rhythm (e.g., tapping with foot, turning light on/off in rhythm) *Unison/chorus reading and speaking = most dramatic effect *Singing *Speaking in any novel pattern *Reading = only slight effect, and for some people this condition is actually worse *Speaking under altered auditory feedback |
|
|
In general, what are the main areas/concepts that are used for possible explanations of these fluency-enhancing conditions? |
1) Distraction - but this isn't much of an explanation, circular, doesn't explain mechanism at heart of why stuttering decreases 2) Psychological - emotional factors, in particular, communicative pressure 3) Reduced propositionality 4) Motor-linguistic processes - reduced motor complexity, reduced rate and more rhythmic speech, reduced cognitive-linguistic demands |
|
|
What are explanations for the fluency-enhancing effect of speaking when alone? |
Actually, not even sure this is a real fluency-enhancing condition; Wingate (2002) study found that only 16 out of 190 individuals who stutter did not stutter when alone |
|
|
What are explanations for the fluency-enhancing effect of reading? |
This effect not as dramatic as other conditions; in fact, for some people, it is a condition that increases stuttering
Effect may be attributable to any one of: reduced communicative pressure; reduced requirements for linguistic, or cognitive in general, processing (e.g., don't have to find right words, do morphology, syntax, etc.); having more time for motor programming (scanning ahead?) |
|
|
What are explanations for the fluency-enhancing effect of singing? |
An interesting one because people report not just reduced stuttering but NO STUTTERING AT ALL when singing
May be attributable to the fact that singing is motorically a very different task than speaking--in fact, many features of singing are themselves fluency-enhancing conditions: * generally slower and often w/ prolonged sounds * more rhythmic * different prosodic characteristics (i.e., more variation) * reduced linguistic, or cognitive in general, processing (much like with reading)
Some evidence from imaging studies that brain activity for singing is quite different and we may be using an entirely different pathway/circuit to control singing than speech |
|
|
What are explanations for the fluency-enhancing effects of choral speech? |
NOT the result of reduced rate (still works even if other person reads slightly delayed, or it's over a recording, or is recording of the speaker himself)
Possible explanations: * Distraction (but this is not a true explanation) * Reduced communicative pressure * Somewhat rhythmic * Other person's voice being a kind of masked auditory feedback (though complete masking does not occur) * Stimulating auditory cortex activation (Dr. Max's favorite explanation; goes together with fMRI studies showing no/less auditory cortex activation while people who stutter are talking than for people who don't stutter) |
|
|
What are 3 forms of altered auditory feedback that have been studied as fluency-enhancing conditions? |
1) masked auditory feedback (MAF) - the auditory signal is masked by white noise (or any other loud sound) (think: the loud music he listens to while talking in The King's Speech) - effects only show up at 50-60 dB and above
2) delayed auditory feedback (DAF) - auditory signal is played back with a delay (think: SpeechEasy)
3) frequency altered auditory feedback (FAF) - auditory signal is played back with a shift in frequency |
|
|
What are the main points about altered auditory feedback that should be considered? (i.e., how do the 3 forms compare in effectiveness in enhancing fluency, what are considerations regarding speech rate and binaural vs. monaural, etc.) |
* DAF and FAF are more effective than MAF * DAF and FAF are equally effective * Both DAF and FAF result in reduced stuttering at normal as well as increased speech rates (Ingham studies) * Binaural alterations more effective than monaural alterations BUT devices usually only bought for one ear (because of costs) * Despite being considered similar to choral speaking, DAF and FAF (and combo) are much less effective at reducing stuttering frequency |
|
|
What are some overall conclusions that can be drawn about fluency-enhancing conditions? |
1) Any novel pattern of speaking is likely to result in an immediate decrease of stuttering frequency
2) Any novel pattern of hearing oneself speak is likely to result in an immediate decrease of stuttering frequency (and note recent research re: visual choral speech/visual feedback also being fluency-enhancing conditions)
3) But person has to be making movements with their mouth that actually look like speech (fMRI studies of lip reading, showing that auditory cortex is activated when mouth movements for speech made, but not when mouth movements not for speech made) |
|
|
Define punishment. |
The reduction of the future probability of a specific response as a result of the immediate delivery of a stimulus for that response |
|
|
Describe the results of various response-contingent stimulation studies and the overall conclusion that can be drawn from them. |
Overall conclusion: almost any response-contingent stimulus will reduce stuttering frequency in most individuals (--> and Lidcombe developed out of this!)
First study: stuttering increased in one condition (105 dB tone continuous except for 5 sec after each stuttering) and decreased in another opposite condition (1-sec 105 dB tone after each stuttering); then same "punishing effects" obtained with DAF, electric shock, verbal stimuli ("wrong"), time-out, and token economy systems
Second study: response-contingent delivery of "wrong," "right," or "tree" - result was that all stimuli were equally effective in reducing stuttering
Third study: found that reinforcing fluent speech ("good" or small amounts of money) also results in decrease in stuttering frequency |
|
|
What are some possible theoretical explanations for response-contingent stimulation results in stuttering? |
* Operant conditioning (but is that really an explanation?) * Attention is being called to the stuttering * Distraction * Changes in sensorimotor processes - a type of motor learning? |
|
|
Describe variability in stuttering, in adults and in children. |
Adults = primarily varies from situation to situation; with some variation over longer time intervals
Children = primarily varies over time, and there may be intervals of completely fluent speech lasting days, weeks, or months; and fluent intervals gradually decrease as children get older |
|
|
What are 3 kinds of studies that looked at speech motor control aspects of stuttering? |
1) Perceptual data re: decreases in stuttering
2) Speech motor control during moments of stuttering
3) Speech motor control during perceptually fluent speech |
|
|
Describe the study we discussed that is about perceptual decreases in stuttering and what the findings were. |
Study on discoordination of larynx with articulators and respiration - had people speak, whisper, and lip passages
Found that they were perceptually judged (on silent video) as stuttering the most, less, and then even less for each of those 3 conditions
However, these results are confounded by the fact that we can't be sure if the findings are due to discoordination or just that the altered ways of speaking in the last 2 conditions are actually creating fluency-enhancing conditions |
|
|
What are some problems with attempting to gather data on speech motor control during moments of stuttering? |
Difficult to make comparisons between moments of stuttering - what do you compare it with? fluent speech?
Connecting a person to sensor equipment for these studies interferes with the subject's typical way of thinking - so is a potentially confounding fluency-enhancing condition, and get fewer overall moments of stuttering/limited data |
|
|
What data/findings are available from studies of speech motor control during stuttering moments? |
Limited data; mostly about larynx (most straightforward and objective measurements)
1980 study found that during a moment of stuttering, antagonistic activity in laryngeal muscles occurred (i.e., simultaneous contraction of adductor and abductor muscles
But we have since learned that fluent speakers also have at least some antagonistic activity, and in fact, so do all muscle movements of any kind (to some extent)
Conclusion: still unclear whether people who stutter have antagonistic laryngeal muscle activity more, less, or about the same as people who don't stutter
|
|
|
What are some reasons to analyze perceptually fluent speech in looking at speech motor control questions? |
Because we know that people who stutter have a system that is "not working well" in comparison to people who do not stutter, causing the stuttering. This system still operates the same way even when it's not a stuttering moment--so presumably, we will see differences between stutterers and non-stutterers even when analyzing moments of perceptually fluent speech. |
|
|
Describe reaction time studies comparing individuals who stutter and those who don't. |
Task: subjects asked to start speaking as fast as they can when they hear a pre-determined starting signal.
Individuals who stutter are slower in initiating phonation for isolated vowel, VC syllable, or VCV word; in addition, they are slower in initiating articulation for CV syllable, a word, or an entire sentence. |
|
|
Describe the results of acoustic studies comparing individuals who stutter and those who don't. |
Temporal parameters = VOT, CV transition duration (formant transitions as seen on spectrogram), vowel duration - found these all to be longer for people who stutter
Spatial parameters = formant frequencies, CV transition extent (i.e., where and how much they move articulators) - found no differences (with very few exceptions) |
|
|
Describe the findings (temporal parameters) in Zimmerman's (1980) kinematic study of bilabial opening gesture in CVC words |
Stutterers had longer movement durations, latency between articulatory and phonatory onset, longer vowels, lower peak velocities, etc. (*Some argue these longer times are a result of therapy that taught them to do that, but the same results show up for subjects with no recent treatment history) |
|
|
Discuss sequencing findings in the widely cited Caruso, Abbs & Gracco (1988) kinematic study, and how these findings have been supported (or not) by subsequent studies. |
Caruso, Abbs & Grace findings = non-stuttering speakers produced first /p/ in "sapapple" predominantly with a very predictable sequence of movements; stuttering speakers produced it with a variety of sequencing patterns & increased variability
Later studies: *De Nill (1995) - replicated results for "sapapple" but did not occur for other phrases (e.g., "Emma papa") in reading text *Max, Gracco & Caruso (2004) - found no difference in sequencing patterns for orofacial speech movements, orofacial nonspeech movements, or finger movements
Conclusion: more research is needed to confirm/refute/refine these findings |
|
|
What is the bottom-line general conclusion that comes out of results of sensorimotor studies looking at adaptation to formant shifts in stutterers vs. non-stutterers? |
Overall, people who do not stutter showed a compensatory adaptation to the formant shifts & they adapt well to formant alterations. On the other hand, people who stutter showed limited auditory-motor adaptation in response to formant alterations.
--> One hypothesis then is that people who stutter do not rely on auditory feedback as much as people who do not stutter - they might have difficulties integrating auditory feedback into motor system to generate a movement. |
|
|
What are the general findings of the Daliri & Max (submitted) study on modulation of the auditory system during speech planning? |
Greater differences found between conditions in the non-stuttering group, i.e., in the condition where motor planning was a part of the task, there was greater activation of the auditory cortex than was seen amongst the stuttering group. In the stuttering group, auditory system activation stayed relatively the same in all conditions (no preparation before speaking task or limited activation of auditory cortex in all conditions) |
|
|
What do results of recent nonspeech motor control studies show regarding differences between those who stutter and those who don't? |
The stuttering group is slower across the board in movement durations for: speech, non-speech orofacial, and finger movements (on average, 50% slower than control subjects, but with large variability among subjects); but no differences in rhythmic timing |
|
|
Describe the overall results of experiments looking at senorimotor adaptation in non-speech tasks for people who stutter vs. those who don't. |
Arm movement study (visuomotor rotation; getting visual feedback only, nothing to do with speech or auditory system).
In first study (adults), stuttering group did eventually adapt to altered feedback (as did nonstuttering group) but it takes them longer (more repetitions) to adapt = they learn to adapt more slowly.
In second study (children), can see that the older a non-stuttering child is, the more adaptation occurs; but for children who stutter, it doesn't seem to matter how old they are, there is still the same amount of (minimal) adaptation |
