Speech motor programming in apraxia of speech

Deger, Karin; Ziegler, Wolfram

doi:10.1006/jpho.2001.0163

Cited by 51 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…teldevision); preparatory struggle/homing in on targets; pauses in and between syllables; vowel epenthesis; or a tendency to syllable timed speech. Together with her high variability of 'errors', all in the absence of demonstrable physical weakness, the view marries closely with descriptive criteria for apraxia of speech and its close relationship to ataxia (Ackermann & Hertrich, 2000;Deger & Ziegler, 2002;Miller, 2000;Riecker, Wildgruber, Grodd, & Ackermann, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

What makes acquired foreign accent syndrome foreign?

Miller

Lowit

O’Sullivan

2006

Journal of Neurolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

What makes acquired foreign accent syndrome foreign?

Miller

Lowit

O’Sullivan

2006

Journal of Neurolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, although these group level data provide some support for the FF hypothesis, not all speakers demonstrated the group pattern. Although individual data are not always reported or discussed (e.g., Aichert & Ziegler, 2004; Deger & Ziegler, 2002; Seddoh et al, 1996), observations that not all participants with AOS display the group pattern are not uncommon (e.g., Aichert & Ziegler, 2012; Haley et al, 2001; Mailend & Maas, 2013). The individual analyses in the present study indicated a disproportionate reduction in AVS with masking for at least two speakers with AOS (200 and 205), with a trend for a third (206).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A consensus exists that AOS reflects an impairment of planning and/or programming speech movements (Deger & Ziegler, 2002; Duffy, 2005; Maas, Robin, Ballard, & Schmidt, 2008; Van der Merwe, 2009). However, the precise nature of the disorder remains poorly understood, in part because models of speech motor planning have often been underspecified (Ziegler, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedforward and Feedback Control in Apraxia of Speech: Effects of Noise Masking on Vowel Production

Maas

Mailend

Guenther

2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study was designed to test two hypotheses about apraxia of speech (AOS) derived from the DIVA model (Guenther et al., 2006): (1) the Feedforward System Deficit Hypothesis and (2) the Feedback System Deficit Hypothesis. Method We used noise masking to minimize auditory feedback during speech. Six speakers with AOS and aphasia, four with aphasia without AOS, and two unimpaired speaker groups (younger and older adults) participated. Acoustic measures of vowel contrast, variability, and duration were analyzed. Results Younger, but not older unimpaired speakers showed significantly reduced vowel contrast with noise masking. Relative to older controls, the AOS group showed longer vowel durations, and a greater reduction in vowel contrast under masking conditions. There were no significant differences in variability. Three of the six speakers with AOS demonstrated the group pattern. Speakers with aphasia without AOS did not differ from controls in contrast, duration, or variability. Conclusion The greater reduction in vowel contrast with masking noise for the AOS group is consistent with the Feedforward System Deficit Hypothesis but not with the Feedback System Deficit Hypothesis; however, effects were small and not present in all individual speakers with AOS. Theoretical implications and alternative interpretations of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…An early study by Towne and Crary (1988) showed that a patient with AoS had longer premotor preparatory time compared to non-apraxic speakers. Deger and Ziegler (2002) recorded reaction times for the production of nonsense words differing in length (2 vs. 3 syllables) or difficulty (same syllable repeated or different syllables). The apraxic patients had significantly longer word RTs (and onset RTs for second syllables) in the case of alternating syllables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological simplifications, apraxia of speech and the interaction between phonological and phonetic processing

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on aphasia has struggled to identify apraxia of speech (AoS) as an independent deficit affecting a processing level separate from phonological assembly and motor implementation. This is because AoS is characterized by both phonological and phonetic errors and, therefore, can be interpreted as a combination of deficits at the phonological and the motoric level rather than as an independent impairment. We apply novel psycholinguistic analyses to the perceptually phonological errors made by 24 Italian aphasic patients. We show that only patients with relative high rate (>10%) of phonetic errors make sound errors which simplify the phonology of the target. Moreover, simplifications are strongly associated with other variables indicative of articulatory difficulties - such as a predominance of errors on consonants rather than vowels - but not with other measures - such as rate of words reproduced correctly or rates of lexical errors. These results indicate that sound errors cannot arise at a single phonological level because they are different in different patients. Instead, different patterns: (1) provide evidence for separate impairments and the existence of a level of articulatory planning/programming intermediate between phonological selection and motor implementation; (2) validate AoS as an independent impairment at this level, characterized by phonetic errors and phonological simplifications; (3) support the claim that linguistic principles of complexity have an articulatory basis since they only apply in patients with associated articulatory difficulties.

show abstract

Speech motor programming in apraxia of speech

Cited by 51 publications

References 25 publications

What makes acquired foreign accent syndrome foreign?

What makes acquired foreign accent syndrome foreign?

Feedforward and Feedback Control in Apraxia of Speech: Effects of Noise Masking on Vowel Production

Phonological simplifications, apraxia of speech and the interaction between phonological and phonetic processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About