Articulatory evidence for feedback and competition in speech production

Abstract

Speech error investigations have traditionally relied on the perceptual categorization of responses, limiting analyses to small subsets of the data identified as appropriate 'errors'. Here we report an experimental investigation of slips of the tongue using a Word Order Competition (WOC) paradigm in which context (entirely nonlexical, mixed) and competitor (whether a possible phoneme substitution would result in a word or not) were crossed. Our primary analysis uses electropalatographic (EPG) records to measure articulatory variation, and reveals that the articulation of onset phonemes is affected by two factors. First, onsets with real word competitors are articulated more similarly to the competitor onset than when the competitor would result in a nonword. Second, onsets produced in a nonlexical context vary more from the intended onset than when the context contains real words. We propose an account for these findings that incorporates feedback between phonological and lexical representations in a cascading model of speech production, and argue that measuring articulatory variation can improve our understanding of the cognitive processes involved in speech production.

The phonetics of hyper-active feet: Effects of stress priming on speech planning and production

“…Both the syllable duration results and the formant variability results are reminiscent of the type of intermediate speech production behaviour found in studies of segmental errors (Mowrey and McKay 1990;Frisch and Wright 2002;Goldstein et al 2007;McMillan et al 2009;McMillan and Corley 2010). For example, in a study of segmental errors using acoustic data, Frisch and Wright (2002) showed that speech errors included both categorical substitutions as well as gradient compromises in the phonetic dimensions that instantiate categorical distinctions.…”

“…This could potentially be attributable to decreased competition from a trochaic metrical template. Certainly at the level of the speech gesture, there is now substantial evidence that speech errors can involve simultaneous articulation (Goldstein et al 2007;McMillan et al 2009;McMillan and Corley 2010). Even when speech errors are not perceptible, competition between segments is detectable at the level of muscle contraction (Mowrey and McKay 1990) and in the fine details of the acoustics (Frisch and Wright 2002).…”

Orthography and Modality Influence Speech Production in Adults and Children

“…In contrast, some more recent investigators have examined the phonetic aspects of speech production as a window into higher level aspects of language production. For example, studies of speech errors (e.g., Goldrick, Baker, Murphy, & Baese-Berk, 2011) and the lexical bias of slips of the tongue (e.g., McMillen, Corley, & Lickley, 2009) provide evidence for interactivity among lexical, phonological, and phonetic levels of production. Another paradigm, the motor theory of speech perception (Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler, & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967;Liberman & Mattingly, 1985), has also highlighted the interactions between perception and action.…”

Acoustic consequences of articulatory variability during productions of /t/ and /k/ and its implications for speech error research

“…Thus based on the former, speech errors have traditionally been described in categorical terms as substitution of one symbolic phonological unit with another ͑Fromkin, 1971͑Fromkin, , 1973Shattuck-Hufnagel, 1979. However, physiological studies have shown first that such perceived categorical substitutions may, in fact, involve the simultaneous production of two constrictions ͑one intended and one errorful͒, and second that these constrictions may be produced along a gradient continuum of magnitudes, exhibiting patterns intermediate between those typical for a given category ͑Boucher, 1994; Goldstein et al, 2007;McMillan et al, 2009;Mowrey and MacKay, 1990;Pouplier, 2003 Different results have also emerged from auditory and articulatory analyses as far as the extent to which coronals and non-coronals are prone to errors. The auditory analysis of Stemberger ͑1991͒ showed that coronals are disproportionally susceptible to be replaced by non-coronals in errors.…”

“…Several studies have found that the alternating consonants in such utterances display an increased amount of articulatory and acoustic variability compared to environments in which these consonants do not alternate. Under certain circumstances, this variability may be perceived as errorful by listeners ͑Boucher, 1994; Goldstein et al, 2007;McMillan et al 2009;Mowrey and MacKay, 1990;Pouplier, 2003Pouplier and Goldstein, 2005͒. However, there has been no systematic study to examine the relationship between such articulatory variability and its acoustic consequences. That is, previous studies either examined articulatory variability without a systematic analysis of its impact on acoustics or they examined acoustic variability without the availability of information on the articulations that give rise to the acoustics.…”