Tongue Kinematics during Utterances Elicited with the SLIP Technique

Pouplier, Marianne

doi:10.1177/00238309070500030201

Cited by 39 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(105 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evaluation of speech errors from audio recordings, however, may be influenced by listeners' perceptual biases, as well as by the conventions used for phonetic transcription (Cutler, 1981;Frisch & Wright, 2002;Pouplier & Goldstein, 2005). Previous work using electromagnetic articulography (EMA), with normal auditory feedback, has suggested that many errors perceived to be categorical may involve subphonemic articulatory errors, including the coproduction of multiple segments (Goldstein, Pouplier, Chen, Saltzman, & Byrd, 2007;Pouplier, 2007;Pouplier & Hardcastle, 2005). Thus, it is important to determine if errors that are induced by DAF and judged by listeners to be categorical represent pure sequencing errors or involve subphonemic alterations to the articulatory output because the two classes of errors may arise from different mechanisms, as noted previously.…”

Section: Speech Error Identification and Electromagnetic Articulographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that only trials without perceptual errors were evaluated, and the participants with the highest error rates were excluded. Indeed, most existing articulographic studies employ measures of the kinematics of speech (e.g., spatiotemporal index [STI]) that disregard speech error data, with a few notable exceptions (Goldstein et al, 2007;Pouplier, 2007); as such, quantitative methods for conducting kinematic analyses of errorful speech are currently lacking.…”

Section: Speech Error Identification and Electromagnetic Articulographymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kinematic Analysis of Speech Sound Sequencing Errors Induced by Delayed Auditory Feedback

Cler

Lee

Mittelman

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Delayed auditory feedback (DAF) causes speakers to become disfluent and make phonological errors. Methods for assessing the kinematics of speech errors are lacking, with most DAF studies relying on auditory perceptual analyses, which may be problematic, as errors judged to be categorical may actually represent blends of sounds or articulatory errors. Method Eight typical speakers produced nonsense syllable sequences under normal and DAF (200 ms). Lip and tongue kinematics were captured with electromagnetic articulography. Time-locked acoustic recordings were transcribed, and the kinematics of utterances with and without perceived errors were analyzed with existing and novel quantitative methods. Results New multivariate measures showed that for 5 participants, kinematic variability for productions perceived to be error free was significantly increased under delay; these results were validated by using the spatiotemporal index measure. Analysis of error trials revealed both typical productions of a nontarget syllable and productions with articulatory kinematics that incorporated aspects of both the target and the perceived utterance. Conclusions This study is among the first to characterize articulatory changes under DAF and provides evidence for different classes of speech errors, which may not be perceptually salient. New methods were developed that may aid visualization and analysis of large kinematic data sets. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5103067

show abstract

Section: Speech Error Identification and Electromagnetic Articulographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Speech Error Identification and Electromagnetic Articulographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic Analysis of Speech Sound Sequencing Errors Induced by Delayed Auditory Feedback

Cler

Lee

Mittelman

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Induced Predisposition" (SLIP, Motley & Baars, 1976;Pouplier, 2007). The SLIP technique uses juxtaposed minimal pairs such as "cop top, kip tip," which are presented in different permutations in order to elicit speech errors.…”

Section: Materials and Recording Procedures A Popular Technique Used Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the speech articulation level, research using electromagnetic articulography and ultrasound imaging of the tongue has shown that tongue twisters can cause confusion and discoordination of the articulators, such as parallel execution of conflicting articulatory gestures (Pouplier, 2007;Goldstein et al, 2007;McMillan & Corley, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The level of difficulty of these tongue twisters was considered quite challenging. This approach did not allow making the detailed observations that can be obtained with a method such as the SLIP technique (Pouplier, 2007). Nevertheless, the tongue twisters were successful in that a number of speech errors could be elicited in a convenient and naturalistic manner in both the patient and the control speakers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Production of tongue twisters by speakers with partial glossectomy

Bressmann

Foltz

Zimmermann

et al. 2014

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A partial glossectomy can affect speech production. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of the presence of a tumour as well as the glossectomy surgery on the patients' production of tongue twisters with the sounds [t] and [k]. Fifteen tongue cancer patients and 10 healthy controls took part in the study. The outcome measures were the patients' speech acceptability, rate of errors, the time needed to produce the tongue twisters, pause duration between item repetitions, and the tongue shape during the production of the consonants [t] and[k] before and after surgery. The patients' speech acceptability deteriorated after the surgery.Compared to controls, the patients' productions of the tongue twisters were slower but not more errorful. Following the surgery, their speed of production did not change but the rate of errors was higher. Pause duration between items was longer in the patients than in the controls but did not increase from before to after surgery. Analysis of the patients' tongue shapes for the productions of [t] and [k] indicated a higher elevation following the surgery for the patients with flap reconstructions. The results demonstrated that the surgical resection of the tongue changed the error rate but not the speed of production for the patient. The differences in pause duration also indicate that the tumour and the surgical resection of the tongue may impact the phonological planning of the tongue twister.

show abstract

Speech Production and Perception

Fowler¹,

Iskarous²

2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One way to investigate speech motor learning is to create artificial adaptation situations by perturbing speakers' auditory feedback in real time. Formant perturbations were introduced by Houde and Jordan (1998), providing the first evidence that speakers adapt their pronunciation to compensate for these perturbations. Twenty years later, this chapter provides an overview of the general impact of Houde and Jordan's work in speech research and beyond, as well as a more detailed review of studies that involve formant perturbations. The impact of Houde and Jordan's work appears to be cross-disciplinary. Although mainly related to speech production and perception, it has also been cited in the limb movement and even animal research, mainly as evidence of adaptive sensorimotor control. Formant perturbations research has expanded rapidly since 2006, spreading across the world and many research teams. We identified 77 experimental studies focused on formant perturbations which we then analyzed with regard to technical and theoretical issues. This analysis showed that various apparatuses and procedures were used to address important topics of speech research. A primary interest has been in feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech. These mechanisms were addressed in different populations, including adults and children with typical vs. atypical development, with behavioral or neurophysiological approaches, or both. Some formant perturbations studies more specifically focused on the integration of auditory and somatosensory feedback in speech production, while others explored the interaction between speech production and perception of phonemic contrasts. Some research questioned the processes and the nature of speech representations by investigating generalization of adaptation to formant perturbations. Finally, a few studies were interested in the effect of extraneous variables such as surface effects or speakers' general cognitive abilities. Altogether, these studies provide insights into speech motor control in general and into the understanding of sensorimotor interactions in particular. The field has developed recently and may still expand in the future, as it allows us to address fundamental topics in speech research such as perception-production links or abstract vs. exemplar representations. Future Caudrelier and Rochet-Capellan research with formant perturbations may also further connect sensorimotor adaptation to linguistic and cognitive factors and in particular to working and long-term memory.

show abstract

Tongue Kinematics during Utterances Elicited with the SLIP Technique

Cited by 39 publications

References 57 publications

Kinematic Analysis of Speech Sound Sequencing Errors Induced by Delayed Auditory Feedback

Kinematic Analysis of Speech Sound Sequencing Errors Induced by Delayed Auditory Feedback

Production of tongue twisters by speakers with partial glossectomy

Speech Production and Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About