1 / 30

The phonetics of speech errors

The phonetics of speech errors. Frisch, S. A. University of South Florida frisch@cas.usf.edu. This work supported by NIH-NIDCD R03 06164. Study of Speech Errors. The study of how speech can go wrong in speech errors tells us something about how the speech production mechanism works

duante
Download Presentation

The phonetics of speech errors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The phonetics of speech errors Frisch, S. A. University of South Florida frisch@cas.usf.edu This work supported by NIH-NIDCD R03 06164

  2. Study of Speech Errors • The study of how speech can go wrong in speech errors tells us something about how the speech production mechanism works • Error patterns are not “random” • Similar approach used in (non-clinical) aphasia research: The disordered brain tells us about normal brain function

  3. Phonological Segment Errors • Many speech errors involve the apparent mis-production of a single phoneme • For example, “Frisch fry” for ‘fish fry’ “like box” for ‘bike locks’

  4. One Model • Dell (1986 inter alia) spreading activation model • Word nodes activate phonemes • Phonemes activate related words, creating competition • The model is also noisy • Accidental over-activation of an incorrect phoneme creates a speech error

  5. Support for the Model • Increased speech error rate when phonemic context is shared in experiments that elicit errors • For example, initial /b, m/ errors • Most common: make bake • Less common: made bake • Least common: mad bake

  6. More Support • Errors that create words are more common than errors that don’t • For example, sip zap vs. sung zone • Also, effect of word level can be influenced by processing time • Demand for a quick response results in less of a lexical effect • Not enough time for competition to build

  7. Errors at the Gestural Level • Sub-phonemic errors have not been studied much • Mowrey & MacKay (1990) used electrodes to examine muscle activation in errors, and found evidence for frequent “gradient” errors • Pouplier (2003) EMA study found gestural insertion common in errors

  8. Research Program • Is the gestural level just another interactive layer in the connectionist model, or a separate component? • Is gestural activation and competition like phonemic/lexical activation and competition? • Can lexical influences on gestural errors be found?

  9. Frisch & Wright (2002) • Acoustic study of speech errors between /s/ and /z/ • Crucially differ in voicing (periodicity) • Less crucial differences in amplitude and duration • However, some potential interdependence of these differences

  10. Categorical Gestures • Errors that switched all the way to the ‘norm’ of the other category were more common than extreme gradient errors • Clearer to see for /s/ targets than for /z/ targets, as devoicing of /z/ is phonetically normal

  11. Distribution of voicing

  12. Current research • Speech errors studied using ultrasound • Ultrasound recordings give a means to directly measure articulation • Similar to Pouplier (2003) EMA studies

  13. Participants • Four undergraduate students from the CSD department • Monolingual English speakers • No self-reported history of speech/hearing disorder

  14. Procedure • Participant seated in head stabilizing apparatus • Ultrasound probe held under chin by a cross bar • Compressible acoustically transparent standoff between chin and probe • Participant produces six repetitions of each tongue twister • Stimuli read off of a printed sheet

  15. Stimuli • Four word tongue twisters designed to elicit stop onset errors • Tongue twisters focusing on onset segments used to increase error rate • Error patterns in tongue twisters similar to error patterns in comparable spontaneous speech (Shattuck-Hufnagel 1992)

  16. Stimuli • Baseline recordings of productions of a speech sound by a participant e.g. “ta tae tae ta” • Determine normal patterns for /t, d, k, g/ • 48 productions of each onset (2 stimuli with 4 onsets repeated 6 times) • Measure tongue blade and dorsum raising

  17. Stimuli • Experimental recordings of stimuli with alternations e.g. “cop tab top cab” e.g. “ka tae ta kae” • Six word stimuli, eight non-word stimuli • Measure tongue blade angle and dorsum raising • Compare with normal patterns • Look for abnormalities

  18. Measures • Dorsum raising measure • Direction of dorsum raising varies by vowel (Wodzinski 2004) • Typical direction of dorsum raising determined from baseline • Distance of dorsum raising along typical direction measured for each stimulus (both velar and alveolar)

  19. Measures • Tongue blade angle • Elevation of the tongue tip/blade measured as an angle • Line segment drawn over last 1 cm of visible tongue tip • Angle of elevation measured from proximal point to distal point (0 is level, positive is inclined, negative is declined)

  20. “normal” alveolar

  21. Results so far • Both categorical and gradient errors observed • Small perturbations from baseline values commonly observed in tongue twisters • Are perturbations gradient errors? • Ordinary coarticulation vs. • “Traces” of activation of intended target (Goldrick 2004)

  22. Representative participant Alveolar targets Velar targets

  23. An apparent gradient error from /g/ gesture intrusion “normal” /t/ /t/ with dorsum raised

  24. Representative participant Alveolar targets Velar targets Not a gradient error… a vowel error… produced /ge/

  25. Discussion • Gradient errors confirmed in a more natural production task than Pouplier (2003) • Categorical errors appear to be much more common • Error data difficult to quantify • “Normal” alveolars in alternating context produced differently than in baseline • Difference not found in velars

  26. Gestural activation • Findings are consistent with a model of error production as erroneous gestural activation • Competing articulators may be simultaneously activated, producing an abnormal combination • Activation can be partial and not total, and so not accounted for by a completely symbolic linguistic model

  27. Gestural activation • Prevalence of categorical errors • For the most part, however, erroneous activation of gestures falls into the normal phonetic categories • Consistent with gestural level as another level of the hierarchy • Activation of coordinated combinations is supported by segment and word level activation

  28. Lexical effects? • Error rates higher in nonword case • But no obvious tendency for more gradient or categorical errors in one case or the other • Emphasizes need to quantify data

  29. Representative participant Alveolar targets Velar targets

  30. Conclusions • Making progress… • While this study does not address many of the long-term questions of the research program, it is generating valuable basic data on speech errors • Even this relatively simple study has illuminated many challenges to the study of gestural speech errors within the speech production system

More Related