The Lombard effect is the tendency to increase one's vocal intensity in noise. The present study reports three experiments that test the robustness of the Lombard effect when speakers are given instructions and training with visual feedback to help suppress it. The Lombard effect was found to be extremely stable and robust. Instructions alone had little influence on the response to the noise among untrained speakers. When visual feedback correlated with vocal intensity was presented, however, subjects could inhibit the Lombard response. Furthermore, the inhibition remained after the visual feedback was removed. The data are interpreted as indicating that the Lombard response is largely automatic and not ordinarily under volitional control. When subjects do learn to suppress the effect, they seem to do so by changing overall vocal level rather than their specific response to the noise.
Adult speakers participated in a spontaneous speech task in which the intensity of their auditory feedback through earphones was systematically manipulated over a 20-dB-SPL range. In Experiment I, Ss showed a statistically significant but slight tendency to decrease their vocal intensity as sidetone was amplified. The effect was greatest when subjects were instructed to attend to their sidetone and to compensate for any changes in loudness. In Experiment II, the same procedures were repeated except that 80-dB-SPL noise was added in the earphones. Addition of the noise resulted in considerably enhanced sidetone-amplification effects, even when Ss were instructed to keep their vocal level constant. In Experiment III, several levels of noise (0, 60, 70, 80 dB SPL) were used and it was noted that the greater the noise, the more substantial were the sidetone-amplification effects. In Experiment IV, subjects were instructed to talk either louder or softer than usual, with and without noise. The data from this last experiment indicate that it is the presence of the noise that enhances response to sidetone manipulations, and not simply the level at which the subjects are talking.
Videofluoroscopic swallowing examinations of 3 patients with dysphagia were reviewed independently by 10 speech-language pathologists. Prior to viewing each video, clinicians were provided with information about the patient's history, the results of a bedside swallow examination, and oral-facial and oral motor control examinations. Clinicians completed a swallowing observation protocol as they viewed each video. They then recommended, from a list of treatment strategies, intervention techniques that would be most appropriate for each patient. Interjudge agreement was calculated by determining how many clinicians observed a given swallowing event or deficit, and how many recommended a given treatment strategy. Results suggest that the level of interjudge agreement for videofluoroscopic evaluations is not encouragingly high.
A persistent problem in programs designed to help children acquire language skills is how to promote generalization so that the child can use communication skills in the widest variety of appropriate situations. One solution is to embed the teaching in the natural environment and, perhaps, to use the parent as the teacher. For some families, however, this may not be a feasible arrangement, because of the nature of the child's problem, the characteristics of the environment, or some interaction. It may then be most appropriate to teach the child in a clinical or laboratory environment and to use a formal language training program. When such programs are implemented, there is often a problem in extending or generalizing the child's newly acquired skills. Careful consideration of the manner in which stimuli are presented, the kinds of responses that are required, and the way in which reinforcement is dispensed may help to solve the difficulty in moving from laboratory to natural settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.