Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLickley, Robin
dc.contributor.authorHartsuiker, Robert J.
dc.contributor.authorCorley, Martin
dc.contributor.authorRussell, Melanie
dc.contributor.authorNelson, Ruth
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-29T15:52:19Z
dc.date.available2018-06-29T15:52:19Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifierER391
dc.identifier.citationLickley, R., Hartsuiker, R., Corley, M., Russell, M. & Nelson, R. (2005) Judgment of disfluency in people who stutter and people who do not stutter : Results from magnitude estimation., Language and Speech, vol. 48, , pp. 299-312,
dc.identifier.issn0023-8309
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/00238309050480030301
dc.identifier.urihttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/391
dc.description.abstractTwo experiments used a magnitude estimation paradigm to test whether perception of disfluency is a function of whether the speaker and the listener stutter or do not stutter. Utterances produced by people who stutter werejudged as less fluent, and, critically, this held for apparently fluent utterances as well as for utterances identified as containing disfluency. Additionally, people who stutter tended to perceive utterances as less fluent, independent of who produced these utterances. We argue that these findings are consistent with a view that articulatory differences between the speech of people who stutter and people who do not stutter lead to perceptually relevant vocal differences. We suggest that these differences are detected by the speech self-monitoring system (which uses speech perception) resulting in covert repairs. Our account therefore shares characteristics with the Covert Repair (Postma & Kolk, 1993) and Vicious Circle (Vasic & Wijnen, 2005) hypotheses. It differs from the Covert Repair hypothesis in that it no longer assumes an additional deficit at the phonological planning level. It differs from the Vicious Circle hypothesis in that it no longer attributes hypervigilant monitoring to unknown, external factors. Rather, the self-monitor becomes hypervigilant because the speaker is aware that his/her speech is habitually deviant, even when it is not, strictly speaking, disfluent.
dc.format.extent299-312
dc.publisherKingston Press Services
dc.relation.ispartofLanguage and Speech
dc.subjectdisfluency judgment
dc.subjectself-monitoring
dc.subjectstuttering
dc.titleJudgment of disfluency in people who stutter and people who do not stutter : Results from magnitude estimation.
dc.typearticle
dcterms.accessRightsrestricted
dc.description.facultycasl
dc.description.referencetextADAMS, F. R., FREEMAN, F. J., & CONTURE, E. (1985). Laryngeal dynamics of stutterers. In R. F. Curlee & W. H. Perkins (Eds.), Nature and treatment of stuttering: New directions. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. ADAMS, F. R., & RUNYAN, C. M.(1981). Stuttering and fluency: Exclusive events or points on a continuum? Journal of Fluency Disorders, 6, 197 - 218. ANDERSON, A. H., BADER, M., BARD, E., BOYLE, E., DOHERTY, G., GARROD, S., ISARD, S., KOWTKO, J., McALLISTER, J., MILLER, C., SOTILLO, C., THOMPSON, H., & WEINERT, R. (1991). The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351 - 366. BARD, E., ROBERTSON, D., & SORACE, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32 - 68. BURGER, R., & WIJNEN, F. (1999). Phonological encoding and word stress in stuttering and non-stuttering subjects. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 24, 91 - 106. CONTURE, E. G. (1991). Stuttering: Its nature, diagnosis and treatment. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. DAYALU, V. N., & KALINOWSKI, J. (2002). Pseudofluency in adults who stutter: The illusory outcome of therapy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94(1), 87 - 96. DELL, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283 - 321. FINN, P., & INGHAM, R. J. (1989). The selection of fluent- samples in research on stuttering: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 401 - 418. HARTSUIKER, R. J., & KOLK, H. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 113 - 157. HARTSUIKER, R. J., KOLK, H. H. J., & LICKLEY, R. J. (2005). Stuttering on function words and content words: A computational test of the Covert Repair hypothesis. In R. J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp.261 - 280). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press. HULSTIJN, W., & PETERS, H. F. M. (2000). Stuttering: A disorder of motor control? In B. Maasssen, W. Hulstijn, R. Kent, H. F. M. Peters, & P. H. M. M. van Lieshout (Eds.), Speech motor control in normal and disordered speech. Proceedings of the 4th International Speech Motor Conference (pp.316 - 321). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Vantilt. KELLER, F., & ALEXOPOLOU, T. (2001). Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of information structure. Cognition, 79, 301 - 372. KOLK, H. H. J. (1991). Is stuttering a symptom of adaptation or of impairment? In Peters, H. F. M., Hulstijn, W., & Starkweather, C. W. (Eds.), Speech motor control and stuttering. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Excerpta Medica. KOLK, H. H. J., & POSTMA, A. (1997). Stuttering as a covert-repair phenomenon. In: R. Corlee & G. Siegel (Eds.), Nature and treatment of stuttering: New directions (pp. 182 - 203). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. LEVELT, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41 - 104. LEVELT, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. LEVELT, W. J. M., & WHEELDON, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239 - 269. LICKLEY, R. J. (1998). HCRC Disfluency Coding Manual. HCRC Technical Report. HCRC/ TR-100 MELNICK, K. S., CONTURE, E. G., & OHDE, R. N. (2005). Phonological encoding in young children who stutter. In R. J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 102 - 118). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press. MEYER, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524 - 545. MEYER, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69 - 89. NOOTEBOOM, S. G. (2005). Listening to oneself: Monitoring speech production. In R. J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp.167 - 186). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press. POSTMA, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97 - 131. POSTMA, A., & KOLK, H. H. J. (1992). The effects of noise masking and required accuracy on speech errors, disfluencies, and self-repairs. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 537 - 544. POSTMA, A., & KOLK, H. H. J. (1993). The Covert Repair hypothesis: Prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 472 - 487. POSTMA, A., KOLK, H. H. J., & POVEL, D. J. (1990). On the relation among speech errors, disfluencies, and self-repairs. Language and Speech, 33, 19 - 29. SCHIAVETTI, N., SACCO, P. R., METZ, D. E., & SITLER, R. W. (1983). Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of stuttering severity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 568 - 573. SHERRARD, C. A. (1975). Stuttering as false alarm responding. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 10, 83 - 91. TUTHILL, C. (1940). A quantitative study of extensional meaning with special reference to stuttering. Journal of Speech Disorders, 5, 189 - 191. Van LIESHOUT, P., PETERS, H., STARKWEATHER, C. W., & HULSTIJN, W. (1993). Physiological differences between stuttererers and nonstutterers in perceptually fluent speech: EMG amplitude and duration. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 55 - 63. VASIC, N., & WIJNEN, F. (2001). Stuttering and speech monitoring. Proceedings of DISS 2001 29 - 31 August 2001, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, pp.13 - 17. VASI C, N., & WIJNEN, F. N. K. (2005). Stuttering as a monitoring deficit. In R. J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp.226 - 247). Hove: Psychology Press. WIJNEN, F. N. K. (2000). Stotteren als resultaat van inadequate spraakmonitoring [Stuttering as the result of inadequate speech monitoring]. Stem-, Spraak- en Taalpathologie, 9, 211-230. WIJNEN, F. N. K., & BOERS, I. (1994). Phonological priming effects in stutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 19, 1 - 20. WINGATE, M. (1988). The structure of stuttering. New York: Springer. WOOD, S. (1995). An electropalatographic analysis of stutterers' speech. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 30, 226 - 236. YARUSS., S. (1999). Utterance length, syntactic complexity and childhood stuttering. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42(2), 329 - 344.
dc.description.volume48
dc.identifier.doihttp://10.1177/00238309050480030301
dc.description.ispublishedpub
dc.description.eprintid391
rioxxterms.typearticle
qmu.authorLickley, Robin
qmu.centreCASLen
dc.description.statuspub
dc.description.number3


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record