stuttering inhibition during the perception of infrared kinematic marker movements research by:...

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 University2 – East Carolina University3 – Massachusetts General Hospital

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)

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)

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)

General Explanation of Speech Production

From Golfinopoulos Tourville and Guenther, (2009)

Theoretical Models of Why Stuttering is Reduced Under Feedback

From: Max, Guenther, Gracco, Ghosh, and Wallace (2004)

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)

HypothesisThe 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.

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

Results

Inferential AnalysisRepeated 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)*

Descriptive Results• SVF – 40%• DVF – 61%

DiscussionStuttering was reduced to the same extent

during both kinematic marker and full-face conditionsFlexibility of the speech perception system

DVF reduced stuttering to a greater extent than SVFTemporal 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