Durational Characteristics of the Fluent Speech of Stutterers and Nonstutterers

Pindzola, Rebekah H.

doi:10.1159/000265844

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pindzola (1987) found that persons who stutter tend to spend more time than control speakers in static articula tory positions, which she explained by assuming that per sons who stutter delay the initiation of co-articulatory move ments. Such a delay could arise when persons who stutter first complete the execution of one motor unit (e.g., a syllabic gesture, see Levelt & Wheeldon, 1994) and, before proceeding, remain in a relatively steady articulatory state position for a variable amount of time, awaiting incoming sensory information to adjust forthcoming muscle com mands.…”

Section: Word Duration Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…586-587). Persons who stutter have been found to have not only delayed reaction times but also delays in speech execution (e.g., see Borden, 1983;McMil lan StPindzola, 1986;Pindzola, 1987;Postma, Kolk, &Povel, 1990;Zimmermann, 1980), and this effect might be in creased by word complexity. Therefore, in addition to i speech reaction times, word duration as a general estimate of speech execution time was measured.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Speech Production in People Who Stutter: Testing the Motor Plan Assembly Hypothesis

Lieshout

Hulstijn²,

Peters

1996

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of the present study was to test the hypothesis that persons who stutter, when compared to persons who do not stutter, are less able to assemble abstract motor plans for short verbal responses. Subjects were adult males who stutter and age-and sex-matched control speakers, who were tested on naming pictures and words, using a choice-reaction time paradigm for both tasks. Words varied in the number of syllables (1, 2, and 3 syllables) and, for the bisyliabic words, also in the number of consonants (one or more) at the onset of the second syllable, Measurements consisted of speech reaction times, word durations, and measures of relative timing of specific motor events in the respiratory, phonatory, and articulatory sub systems.Results indicated that, in spite of longer speech reaction times for persons who stutter in ' i comparison to control speakers, there was no interaction with word size, a finding that does not lend support to the abovementioned hypothesis. Word durations were found to be longer for persons who stutter, and, in addition, there was an interaction of group with word size. Both i findings were associated with longer delays for persons who stutter in the onset of upper lip i integrated electromyographic (IEMG) activity and thoracic compression, and a group effect, on the order of upper tip and lower lip IEMG onset. Findings are taken to suggest the possibility that persons who stutter may use different motor control strategies to compensate for a reduced verbal motor skill, and although the nature of this reduced skill is unknown, it is speculated that it relates to the processes involved in the integration of sensory-motor information. i i

show abstract

Section: Word Duration Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech Production in People Who Stutter: Testing the Motor Plan Assembly Hypothesis

Lieshout

Hulstijn²,

Peters

1996

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This, in turn, may lead to group differences in kinematic characteristics of the resulting movement patterns (e.g., Alfonso, 1991; Ca ruso, Abbs, & Gracco, 1988;Van Lieshout, Alfonso, Hulstijn, & Peters, 1994;Van Lieshout et al, 1996;Zimmermann, 1980aZimmermann, , 1980b, and, indirectly, to group differences in the duration of acoustic events (e.g., Borden, 1983;Healey & Ramig, 1986;McMillian & Pindzola, 1986;Pindzola, 1987;Schäfersküpper & Dames, 1987;Starkweather & Meyers, 1979;Van Lieshout et al, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Planning to Articulation in Speech Production: What Differentiates a Person Who Stutters From a Person Who Does Not Stutter?

Lieshout

Hulstijn²,

Peters

1996

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of the present study was to differentiate between people who stutter and control speakers regarding their ability to assemble motor plans and to prepare (and execute) muscle commands. Adult males who stutter, matched for age, gender, and educational level with a group of control speakers, were tested on naming words and symbols. In addition, their ability to encode and retrieve memory representations of combinations of a symbol and a word, was tested in a recognition task, using manual reaction times and sensitivity scores, as defined in signa! detection theory, as performance measures. Group differences in muscle command preparation were assessed from electromyographic recordings of upper lip and lower lip. Results indicated no interaction between group and word size effects in choice reaction times or a group effect in the ability to recognize previously learned symbol-word combinations. However, they were significantly different in the timing of peak amplitudes in the integrated electromyographic signals o f upper lip and lower lip (IEMG peak latency). Findings question the claim that people who stutter have problems in creating abstract motor plans for speech. In addition, it is argued that the group differences in IEMG peak latency that were found in the present study might be better understood in terms of motor control strategies than in terms of motor control deficits.

show abstract

“…Acoustic measures have been suggested as being better equipped to reveal the boundaries between fluent and stuttered speech in sentences. The utilization of spectographic and other acoustic analyses have assisted researchers in identifying where dysf luent disruptions start and when the effects cease in the continuum of running speech (Onslow, 1995;Pindzola, 1987;Viswanath, 1989;Young, 1994).…”

Section: Temporal Characteristics Of Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acoustic, as well as perceptual investigations, have also demonstrated that stutterers' fluent speech is distinguishable from nonstutterers' fluent speech (Adams, 1987;Pindzola, 1987;Viswanath, 1989). A group of studies for example, has analyzed temporal measures in voice onset times (VOT) of individuals who stutter and VOT of individuals who do not stutter.…”

Section: Temporal Characteristics Of Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Characteristics of Words Surrounding a Moment of Stuttering in Preschool-age Children

Lilly¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Durational Characteristics of the Fluent Speech of Stutterers and Nonstutterers

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

Speech Production in People Who Stutter: Testing the Motor Plan Assembly Hypothesis

Speech Production in People Who Stutter: Testing the Motor Plan Assembly Hypothesis

From Planning to Articulation in Speech Production: What Differentiates a Person Who Stutters From a Person Who Does Not Stutter?

Temporal Characteristics of Words Surrounding a Moment of Stuttering in Preschool-age Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About