Stuttering Inhibition during the Perception of Infrared Kinematic Marker Movements - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

stacie
stuttering inhibition during the perception of infrared kinematic marker movements n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Stuttering Inhibition during the Perception of Infrared Kinematic Marker Movements PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Stuttering Inhibition during the Perception of Infrared Kinematic Marker Movements

play fullscreen
1 / 11
Download Presentation
Stuttering Inhibition during the Perception of Infrared Kinematic Marker Movements
101 Views
Download Presentation

Stuttering Inhibition during the Perception of Infrared Kinematic Marker Movements

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Stuttering Inhibition during the Perception of Infrared Kinematic Marker Movements Research by: Daniel Hudock, Ph.D.1 , Lin Sun, M.Ed.2 , Skye Lewis, M.S.1 , Laura Ball, Ph.D.3 , Nicholas Altieri, Ph.D.1 , Joseph Kalinowski, Ph.D.2 1 – Idaho State University 2 – East Carolina University 3 – Massachusetts General Hospital

  2. Auditory Speech Signals and Stuttering • Choral speech reduces overt stuttering from 90-100% (Bloodstein & Bernstein-Ratner, 2007; Cherry & Sayers, 1956) • Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF) and Frequency Altered Feedback (FAF) reduce stuttering from 70 – 80% (Kalinowski, Armson, Roland-Mieszkowski, Stuart, & Gracco, 1993; Hargrave, Kalinowski, Stuart, Armson & Jones, 1994; Howell, El-Yaniv & Powell, 1987; Macloed, Kalinowski, Stuart & Armson, 1995; Stuart, Kalinowski, Armson, Stentsrtom & Jones, 1996) • Auditory second speech signals effect on stuttering • Filtered speech (Rami, Kalinowski, Rastatter, Holbert & Allen, 2005) • Sinusoidal speech synthesis (Saltuklaroglu& Kalinowski, 2006) • Temporally compressed and expanded speech (Guntupalli, Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu& Nanjundeswaran, 2005) • Stuttered or fluent speech (Saltuklaroglu, Kalinowski, Dayalu, Stuart, & Rastatter, 2004) • Forward flowing or reversed speech (Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu, Guntupalli & Stuart, 2004)

  3. Non-Speech Signals and Stuttering • Masking Auditory Feedback (MAF) – Also known as white-noise (Bloodstein& Bernstein-Ratner, 2007; Cherry & Sayers, 1956; Kalinowski, et al., 1993) • Pure-tones (Saltuklaroglu& Kalinowski, 2006) • Auditory reverberation (Kuniszyk-Jozkowiak,Smolka& Adamczyk, 1996) • Visual feedback (Kuniszyk-Jozkowiak,Smolka & Adamczyk, 1996) • Tactile feedback (Kuniszyk-Jozkowiak,Smolka & Adamczyk, 1996)

  4. Visual Speech Signals and Stuttering • Visual Choral Speech (VCS) (Kalinowski, Stuart, Rastatter, Snyder & Dayalu, 2000; Saltuklaroglu, Dayalu, Kalinowski, Stuart & Rastatter, 2004) • Same versus different linguistic content (Saltuklaroglu, et al., 2004) • Visual non-speech gestures (Guntupalli, Nanjundeswaran, Kalinowski& Dayalu, 2011) • Simultaneous Visual Feedback (SVF) (Hudock, Dayalu, Saltuklaroglu, Stuart, Zhang & Dayalu, 2011; Snyder, Hough, Blanchet, Ivy & Waddell, 2009) • Delayed Visual Feedback (DVF) (Hudock, et al., 2011; Snyder, et al., 2009)

  5. General Explanation of Speech Production From GolfinopoulosTourvilleand Guenther, (2009)

  6. Theoretical Models of Why Stuttering is Reduced Under Feedback From: Max, Guenther, Gracco, Ghosh, and Wallace (2004)

  7. Theoretical Models of Why Stuttering is Reduced Under Feedback Continued • Mirror System Hypothesis (Saltuklaroglu & Kalinowski, 2003) • EXPLAN model (Howell, 2004) • Ventral and Dorsal Streams Hypothesis (Hickok & Poeppel, (2007)

  8. Hypothesis • The current study sought to explore the effect of visual feedback on stuttering during presentation of full-face and kinematic markers with and without delay. It was hypothesized that stuttering frequency would be differentially affected by full-face and kinematic markers and SVF and DVF conditions. It was also hypothesized that stuttering would be reduced to greater extents during delay conditions as compared to SVF.

  9. Methods • Participants - 7 English speaking male adults who stutter participated in the current study • Stimuli - Sentence were retrieved from Kalinowski et al. (2000) • Procedure – Eight kinematic markers (see figure 1) were placed proximally to participants lips. They then read and memorized 8 – 12 syllable length phrases, which they verbally recited while viewing the feedback monitor. In order to reduce any possible carryover effects researchers had participants produce two-minute spontaneous conversation samples without feedback between the five conditions. Figure 1

  10. Results • Descriptive Results • SVF – 40% • DVF – 61% • Inferential Analysis • Repeated measures ANOVA • [F(1.486,8.914) = 21.885, p = 0.001) • Post-hoc analysis with Bonferoni corrections applied • Baseline relative to all conditions (p < 0.05)* • Full-face compared to kinematic markers (p > 0.05) • SVF compared to DVF (p < 0.05)*

  11. Discussion • Stuttering was reduced to the same extent during both kinematic marker and full-face conditions • Flexibility of the speech perception system • DVF reduced stuttering to a greater extent than SVF • Temporal alignment and coverage of feedback during nonproduction times • (I.e., between words where speech was not being produced feedback was still being seen) • Speech signals that are perceived as being externally produced reduce stuttering to a greater extent