The duration component of the stress effect in stuttering

Natke, Ulrich; Grosser, Juliane; Sandrieser, Patricia; Kalveram, Karl Theodor

doi:10.1016/s0094-730x(02)00163-8

Cited by 25 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although we could not directly compare both positions in the present study because of design and task complexity, these findings point to the possibility that the reduction in VOT variability in sung productions of participants who stutter could be characteristic to the position of the stop in the word (initial vs. medial) or/and the level of prominence (stressed/unstressed). Previous research showed that word-initial syllables and stressed syllables are particularly prone to stuttering (e.g., Hubbard, 1998;Natke, Grosser, Sandrieser, & Kalveram, 2002;Natke, Sandrieser, van Ark, Pietrowsky, & Kalveram, 2004). De Nil & Brutten (1991 found that increased VOT variability in spoken speech of children who stutter was even visible across different levels of cluster complexity in word-initial syllables (i.e., single stop, two-and three-segments-cluster including the stop).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal variability in sung productions of adolescents who stutter

Falk

Maslow

Thum³

et al. 2016

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal variability in sung productions of adolescents who stutter

Falk

Maslow

Thum³

et al. 2016

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While the earlier studies mainly dealt with voice pitch perturbations (Burnett et al, 1998;Hain et al, 2000;Jones and Munhall, 2000;Donath et al, 2002;Natke et al, 2002;Xu et al, 2004;Bauer et al, 2006;Chen et al, 2007;Larson et al, 2007), more recent studies have focused on shifting speech formant frequencies (Houde and Jordan, 1998;Purcell and Munhall, 2006;Munhall et al, 2009). Both types of studies have yielded important information about the role of auditory feedback for the control of the voice during sustained vowel sounds, singing, and speech.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: Evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control

Behroozmand

Korzyukov

Sattler

et al. 2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study describes a technique for analysis of vocal responses to auditory feedback pitch perturbations in which individual trials are first sorted according to response direction and then separately averaged in groups of upward or downward responses. In experiment 1, the stimulus direction was predictable (all upward) but magnitude was randomized between þ100, þ200, or þ500 cents (unpredictable). Results showed that pitch-shift stimuli (PSS) of þ100 and þ200 cents elicited significantly larger opposing (compensatory) responses than þ500 cent stimuli, but no such effect was observed for "following" responses. In experiment 2, subjects were tested in three blocks of trials where for the first two, PSS magnitude and direction were predictable (block 1þ100 and block 2-100 cents), and in block 3, the magnitude was predictable (6100 cents) but direction was randomized (upward or downward). Results showed there were slightly more opposing than following responses for predictable PSS direction, but randomized directions led to significantly more opposing than following responses. Results suggest that predictability of stimulus direction and magnitude can modulate vocal responses to feedback pitch perturbations. The function and causes of the opposing and following responses are unknown, but there may be two different neural mechanisms involved in their production.

show abstract

“…That is, instances of stuttering exhibited by CWS tend to occur on (a) low frequency words (Anderson, 2005;Soderberg, 1966;Palen & Peterson, 1982), (b) first three words of an utterance (Bernstein, 1981;Howell & Au-Yeung, 1995;Wall, Starkweather, & Cairns, 1981), (c) function words (Bernstein, 1981;Bloodstein & Grossman, 1981;Graham, Conture, & Camarata, 2005;Howell, Au-Yeung, & Sackin, 1999;Natke, Sandreiser, van Ark, Pietrowsky, & Kalveram, 2004), and (d) longer or more syntactically complex utterances (Ratner & Sih, 1987;Howell & Au-Yeung, 1995;Kadi-Hanifi & Howell, 1992;Logan & Conture, 1995Melnick & Conture, 2000;Yaruss, 1999). These linguistic factors have also been shown to influence the fluency with which words are produced in adolescents and adults who stutter (e.g., Bergmann, 1986;Brown, 1945;Danzger & Halpern, 1973;Hubbard & Prins, 1994;Klouda & Cooper, 1988;Natke, Grosser, Sandrieser, & Kalveram, 2002;Prins, Hubbard, & Krause, 1991;Ronson, 1976;Wingate, 1984). However, unlike young CWS, older children and adults tend to stutter more on content words than function words (e.g., Brown, 1938a,b;Dayalu, Kalinowski, Stuart, Holbert, & Rastatter, 2002;Howell et al, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%