Individual predictors of response to biofeedback training for second-language production

Abstract

While recent research suggests that visual biofeedback can facilitate speech production training in clinical populations and second language (L2) learners, individual learners' responsiveness to biofeedback is highly variable. This study investigated the hypothesis that the type of biofeedback provided, visual-acoustic versus ultrasound, could interact with individuals' acuity in auditory and somatosensory domains. Specifically, it was hypothesized that learners with lower acuity in a sensory domain would show greater learning in response to biofeedback targeting that domain. Production variability and phonological awareness were also investigated as predictors. Sixty female native speakers of English received 30 min of training, randomly assigned to feature visual-acoustic or ultrasound biofeedback, for each of two Mandarin vowels. On average, participants showed a moderate magnitude of improvement (decrease in Euclidean distance from a native-speaker target) across both vowels and biofeedback conditions. The hypothesis of an interaction between sensory acuity and biofeedback type was not supported, but phonological awareness and production variability were predictive of learning gains, consistent with previous research. Specifically, high phonological awareness and low production variability post-training were associated with better outcomes, although these effects were mediated by vowel target. This line of research could have implications for personalized learning in both L2 pedagogy and clinical practice.

Metacognition in second language speech perception and production

“…There was no relationship between individual accuracy in speech sound perception and production, in novice learners, suggesting the absence of a link between the two domains, at least when learning "novel" perceptually-similar L2 sounds distinct from native categories. This result is consistent with previous research, showing that, while experienced L2 speakers show a moderate-to-strong relationship between L2 perception and production (Baker & Tro movich, 2006;Bettoni-Techio et al, 2007;Flege, 1993Flege, , 1999Flege et al, 1997Flege et al, , 1999Flege & Eefting, 1987a;Flege & Schmidt, 1995;Hattori & Iverson, 2010;Jia et al, 2006;Kluge et al, 2007;Zhang & Peng, 2017), speakers with less experience or novice learners show only weak or no relationship at all (Jia et al, 2006;Kartushina et al, 2015;Kartushina & Frauenfelder, 2014;Li et al, 2019). This may indicate that the two domains align with experience (Flege and Schmidt, 1995).…”

Examining the Relationship Between Speech Perception, Production Distinctness, and Production Variability

“…To examine each participant's overall production variability across repeated utterances of the two vowels, the midpoint F1 and F2 values of each token were used to compute an area of the ellipse measure for each vowel. Following Li et al (2019), trial-to-trial production variability was quantified as the area of an ellipse representing the 95% confidence interval around the multivariate mean of the distribution of F1 and F2 values. Area of the ellipse was calculated first for each vowel separately.…”

The Effect of Double Biofeedback on Functional Hemispheric Asymmetry and Activity: A Pilot Study

“…For example, multidirectional changes in the relative EEG intensity in the brain hemispheres can cause enhancement of cognitive activity and attention processes (Putman, 2005), as well as improvement of executive functions (Kim et al, 2013;Landes et al, 2017). Studies have shown that the effectiveness of biofeedback is determined by many factors such as: motivation (Kleinman, 1981;Saho & Harano, 1984), training (Keefe & Gardner, 1979), respiration (Conde Pastor et al, 2008), and some individual characteristics (Suter, 1979;Li et al, 2019). In general, by unlocking the body's full potential and mobilizing resources to achieve the goal, one can eliminate excessive psycho-emotional tension and improve the efficiency and rationality of activities not only during biofeedback trainings, but also thereafter.…”