Fluency Final Flashcards

1
Q

Speech fluency is made up of…

A

Continuity
Rate
Effort
Rhythm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Fluency

A

the aspect of speech production that refers to the continuity, rate, effort, and rhythm with which phonological, lexical, morphological, and syntactical language units are spoken.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Disfluency

A

the “normal” disruptions in fluency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Dysfluency

A

the atypical type, referring to stuttering

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Wingate’s definition of stuttering

A

disruption in fluency of verbal expression which is characterized by involuntary audible or silent repetitions or prolongations in sounds, syllable, and monosyllabic words. Accompanied by negative emotions (often not correlated with severity of stutter) and sometimes accompanied by accessory characteristics.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

List of disfluencies (* =characteristic of stuttering, a.k.a. dysfluency)

A

1) interjections
2) phrase repetitions
3) revisions
4) incomplete phrases
5) part-word repetitions *
6) word repetitions (* …only monosyllabic, and it still depends)
7) prolongations *
8) broken words *

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

List of dysfluencies

A
o	Part-word repetitions
	Sound
	Syllable
o	Monosyllabic word repetitions
o	Sound prolongations
	Audible
	Inaudible
o	Broken words
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

5 aspects that measure stuttering

A

frequency
duration
frequency by type
speech rate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Frequency

A

o Old method – stuttering moments/unit of time … but if you had one huge, difficult prolongation, your frequency would be lower than if you had two really easy ones, which is misleading
o Current – percent of words OR syllables stuttered (usually use syllables because if we use words, we can’t count multiple stutters within a single word)
o Recent suggestion – time interval judgments
o Note that interjections are not counted as stuttering moments, but if they stutter on the interjection itself, you can count that

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Duration

A

o Stopwatch, computerized scoring (holding down key for stutter, clicking for syllables), acoustic measures (most accurate, i.e. for research)
o In SSI, we count only the 3 longest moments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Frequency-by-type

A

o Proportional distribution of dysfluency types, out of 100% dysfluent moments
 For initial analysis/Dx, you may want to include all disfluencies
 For someone who you already know stutters, just use dysfluencies
o Useful for analyzing whether client has progressed into less severe, difficult types of stuttering (i.e. simple monosyllabic word rep’s rather than inaudible prolongations)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Speech rate

A

o Different than articulation rate (syllables/min during fluent speech)
o The idea is that lower speech rate means you are stuttering more and couldn’t get through as many words
o Provides limited and questionable information, can be thrown off by individual variation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Stuttering severity

A

o Old: subjective ratings (i.e. Iowa scale)
o Never used much: sound prolongation index (frequency-by-type analysis, the more prolongations you have, the more severe)
o Used now: Instruments (indexes) that combine multiple measures (Stuttering Severity Index, SSI)
 Based on 3 scores of overt characteristics:
• Frequency (in % stuttered syllable)
• Average duration of 3 longest moments
• Evaluation and scaling of accessory characteristics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Covert Characteristics

A

attitudes and emotions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Assess covert characteristics

A

o C.A.T. test showed that stuttering kids have negative attitudes about their speech even at 3-4 years old (KiddyC.A.T. test), although negative attitudes get worse with age. ..More proof that Wendell was wrong, kids are already aware they talk differently, we don’t need to keep it a secret`

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Accessory characteristics

A

o Are learned (operant conditioned) behavior, NOT a part of the motor programming dysfunction. They are not tics. May be learned because the person feels like it helps them get a sound out, i.e. jerking head, or it helps them avoid anxiety, i.e. closing eyes)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Two classifications of Accessory Characteristics

A

 1) By assumed purpose (escape, struggling, etc.) – But we shouldn’t assume
 2) By type (this is how we categorize them in SSI)
• Facial grimaces
• Distracting sounds
• Head movements
• Movement of extremities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Acquired “neurogenic” stuttering

A

o Can occur from lesion to pretty much any part of cortex or subcortical structures
o TBI, CVA, degenerative disease, etc.
o Almost always combined with aphasia or some other language disorder
 May be hard to distinguish from apraxia of speech, but apraxic symptoms would be repeated sounds groping at different articulatory positions, while stuttering would be repeating sounds at same articulatory position
o Unlike developmental stuttering, neurogenic stuttering does NOT improve with
 Adaptation effect (reading something 5x)
 Altered auditory feedback
o There is little research on neurogenic stuttering, and for now people kind of just adapt normal stuttering Tx and use it with them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Acquired “psychogenic” stuttering

A

Term used when no organic cause is found…controversial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Cluttering

A

o Fast spurts of speech, imprecise articulation, rephrasing, confused grammar, collapsed words, inability to monitor own speech and to respond to listener cues
o Actually a language disorder, not speech
o Comorbid with stuttering, articulation disorders, ADHD, learning disabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Spasmodic dysphonia

A

o A voice disorder
o Spasms of adductor and sometimes abductor muscles of VFs, can cause people to get stuck in a way like stuttering
o Most common in middle aged women

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Stuttering age of onset

A

• Age of onset = about 2-4 y/o
o Problematic because of
 Gradual onset
 Based on parent recollections
 Based on when parents noticed it as a problem, not necessarily when it just began
o Yairi study (bring your kid in the moment you suspect any stuttering) found that
 65% of stutterers stuttered by age 3;0
 85% of stutterers stuttered by age 3;6
o Classic idea is that stuttering has a gradual increase from relaxed word & syllable repetitions to more tense repetitions and prolongations, and finally accessory characteristics… although Yairi found that in 1/3 of cases, severe symptoms appeared pretty suddenly from the outset

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Spontaneous Recovery

A

o SLPs tend to overestimate spontaneous recovery rates. However, even if the rates were very high, we should still work on Tx regardless. Reasons a high spontaneous recovery rate would not be good enough justification for not offering Tx:
 Stuttering gets worse over time
 There is a small window for effective Tx, and earlier Tx is more effective
 Kids develop negative emotions about their speech (remember CAT tests)

24
Q

Studies of spontaneous recovery

A

o Studies have found rates from 10% to 80%…80 was a Yairi study. Problems with this study:
 Community population rather than clinical population – remember his subjects were brought in at the first suspicion of stuttering, not when it got bad enough to want Tx
 The more severe cases may have dropped out of the study because they decided they should get Tx – therefore study would consist of less severe cases only
 3 criteria for inclusion (3% stuttered syllables, SLP thinks they stutter, & parent thinks they stutter) but only 2 criteria had to improve to qualify as “recovered”
 Also… how “spontaneous” is spontaneous recovery? Remember, Lidcombe Tx is just pointing out/”punishing” stuttered words and praising fluent ones…Parents may do this naturally without knowing they are giving Tx, and child may recover seemingly spontaneously.

25
Q

Predictors of Spontaneous Recovery

A

o Accurate prediction of spontaneous recovery is hard. There are a couple factors that correlate, though:
 Being a girl
 If other family members have recovered from stuttering

26
Q

Prevalence

A

• Prevalence = percentage of total population currently diagnosed = 1%
o Higher rates with intellectual disability– 15-48%
o Lower rates in hearing impaired - .1-.4%, however these studies were not really valid because they did not exclude people who don’t speak from the sample

27
Q

Incidence

A

= a “risk” rate, percentage of population who is diagnosed at some point in their lifetime = 4-5%
o Problems determining prevalence/incidence: use of different age groups, reliability of self-reports, different definitions and criteria

28
Q

Sex ratio

A

o In the general population, 3x or 4x more males than females
o In kids ages 2-3, ratio is much more equal (no more than 2:1, can even be 1:1)
 Reason: girls spontaneously recover more than boys (NOT that boys just have a later onset age)

29
Q

Family studies and stuttering

A
  • Among non-stutterers, 5-20% have 1+ stuttering relative
  • Among stutterers, 20-70% have 1+ stuttering relative
  • Also, stutterers have 3-10x more 1st degree relatives who stutter than do non-stutterers
  • Risk for someone with a 1st degree relative who stutters is 15% risk, but this varies based on how many relatives stutter
  • Remember that family studies alone do not rule out environmental causes (could be learned)
30
Q

Twin studies and stuttering

A
  • Many studies show higher concordance in identical twins (72% concordance) than fraternal twins (9%), suggests that it’s genetic because they share much more genetic material
  • However, one study shows that the concordance is no longer higher if the twins are separated…but this study may not be valid, and at the least it’s not enough to disprove all the others
31
Q

Adoption studies and Stuttering

A

• One inconclusive study found that 30% of adopted stutterers had 1+ adoptive relative who stutters …this is sort of in between the normal non-stuttering and stuttering biological family rates. It would slightly support an environmental argument, but may be invalid because they failed to find out whether any of those adopted stutterers had any bio relatives who stuttered as well (and it was a tiny sample, too)

32
Q

Common disease/common variant

A

a specific variant may be common to ALL people who express the phenotype, but it is not strong enough to cause the phenotype by itself. It need be in combo with other genes (polygenic)…so the common variant creates a susceptibility to complex polygenic diseases. Most efforts to identify the stuttering genotype assume this theory, but results have been inconclusive…
o Different studies have identified different genotypes, but have not been common between different races, genders, type/severity of stuttering, etc

33
Q

Common disease/rare variant

A

a phenotype can have many different genotypes. Any one genotype is not common to all people who express the phenotype, but each is strong enough to cause the phenotype (stuttering) on its own…doesn’t need a combo of other genes. This may be a better model to follow for stuttering, esp considering the variants common among a family but not outside it, like the Pakistani family

34
Q

Brown’s Word Weights

A

1) Phonetic factor: if initial sound of word is a consonant
2) Grammatical factor: if it’s a content word (n/v/adj) …note that preschool kids stutter more on function words
3) Length factor: if it has 5+ letters
4) Position factor: if it’s within the 1st three words of a sentence *this was disproven in Max’s study

35
Q

Max Word Weight comparison study ANS and PDS

A

• Max’s (Marukh’s) study showed that Brown’s weight does correlate with stuttering in both developmental and neurogenic stuttering over various etiologies. BUT position factor had no correlation (even when analyzed differently, like using clauses/phrases instead of sentences). Note that length factor was still correlated even when analyzed using phonemes instead of letters.

36
Q

Phonetic factor explained

A

 OK- consonants require more complex articulatory gestures & obstruction of air flow than vowels
 OK-consonants require difficult coordination of articulators and VFs
 WRONG- consonants carry more “information value” than vowels…This may be true in written text, but not so much in speech. Also, we only make one movement for a CV syllable anyway
 WORSE- anticipatory avoidance of consonants is conditioned…But why would person be scared of consonants in the first place?

37
Q

Grammatical, Length, and Position factors explained

A

 OK- content words, long words, and early in sentence words tend to carry more information value (more plausible explanation for these than for phonetic factor)
 OK- linguistic factors within a sentence have a big effect on how we speak in general: the high “weight” words tend to be spoken with faster movements, more tension, etc, including in fluent speech. These differences in articulatory kinematics may be what make stuttering moments more likely to occur
 WRONG- anticipatory avoidance/conditioning…Same logic problem as for phonetic factor

38
Q

Influence of cognitive load on stuttering

A

o Stroop task & Stroop sentence task (Max study, preliminary data)
 Aimed to show causation between cognitive load and frequency of stuttering. It did show this, but also found…
 Controls, when faced with a higher cognitive load task (mismatched word and text color), would adjust their speech more than would stutterers. Controls would anticipate the higher cognitive processing required and make compensatory adjustments by slowing their formant transitions, even from the very first word of the sentence. Stutterers would speak “stereotypically,” at same rate as in low cognitive load condition, and perhaps this failure to compensate for the higher cognitive load is what causes them to stutter more in this condition.

39
Q

Adaptation Effect

A

o Stuttering frequency decreases 50% over 5 [immediate, consecutive] readings of the same text or repeating of the same sentences
o Effect works in children and adults
o Length of passage does not matter
o No info on whether frequency-by-type changes, just overall frequency

40
Q

Is the effect due to adaptation to situation?

A

 No – consecutive readings in same situation but different passages does show some adaptation, but much less than the same passage. Therefore the adaptation is to the passage itself

41
Q

Is adaptation effect due to comfort level with audience?

A

 No – increasing audience size over the five readings resulted in only slightly less adaptation, so audience comfort is not the main factor

42
Q

Adaptation due to Slowing articulators and fatigue?

A

No – in fact, they tend to speed up, similar to any other learned motor pattern (note in this study that the one subject who did slow down also showed the worst adaptation effect)

43
Q

Does adaptation last after delay?

A

 With a 15 min delay, slightly less adaptation. With 30 min, less. With 24 hours, no adaptation effect remained – BUT, they were comparing the delayed reading to the fully adapted R5. They should have been comparing it to the initial R1!
 More studies have looked at retention compared to R1 (better method), and found some retention up to 10 days. Amount of retention depends both on length of delay and amount of practice

44
Q

Do novel sentences have adaptation effect?

A

o Novel sentences mixed in with repeated sentences DO have an adaptation effect, but not as strong or long-lasting as the repeated sentences (after 24 hrs, the repeated sentences showed partial adaptation retention, the novel did not)
 Unclear why the novel sentences showed any adaptation. Due to context?

45
Q

Consistency effect

A

= related phenomenon. The tendency to stutter on same words you did in previous readings (about 65% of words stuttered were also on previous readings)
 But depends on frequency during first reading…more severe stutterers will always be more “consistent.”

46
Q

Explanation of consistency effect

A
  • Individual conditioning – prior to even reading, you get scared and avoidant (BUT does not draw the connection between fear/avoidance and the actual stuttering)
  • Stuttering on first reading makes you scared and avoidant on next reading (BUT does not draw the connection between fear/avoidance and the actual stuttering)
  • General influence of linguistic factors (Brown’s word weights) make certain words more likely to be stuttered anyway, so consistency effect is really not an effect
47
Q

Explanation for adaptation effect

A

reduced propositionality
experimental extinction
anxiety deconfirmation
reactive inhibition

48
Q

Fluency enhancing conditions

A
being alone
speaking slowly
metronome/rhythmic speaking
choral reading/shadowed speaking
Singing
Reading
Speaking in a novel patter
Altered auditory feedback
49
Q

Types of altered auditory feedback

A

Delayed auditory feedback
Masked auditory feedback
Frequency altered auditory feedback

50
Q

Masked auditory feedback

A

• Some other explanations
o Distraction – vague argument
o Operant conditioning – MAF is aversive stimulus. BUT doesn’t explain how constant MAF works…operant conditioning has to be a response-contingent stimulus
o Stutterers have defective auditory feedback system and MAF gets rid of the “incorrect” feedback… BUT doesn’t explain how simple voice amplification works as well
o Slowing down – BUT it works when you talk fast too
o Other changes in speech parameters – maybe?
o Stimulating auditory cortex in general

51
Q

Delayed auditory feedback

A

o Distraction – vague argument
o Operant conditioning – BUT doesn’t explain how constant DAF works
o Reduction of incorrect feedback… People tried to use the results to say that a stutterer’s auditory feedback has some sort of delay, as if they always had DAF, and that adding more delay would bump it out of the msec range – BUT we now know that stutterers do not have a delay
o Slowing down – But it works when you talk fast too
o Other changes in speech parameters – maybe?
o The DAF acts like a second voice in choral speech (this is what SpeechEasy says is the reason) – BUT it doesn’t work nearly as well as choral speech
o Stimulation of auditory cortex in general

52
Q

Frequency altered auditory feedback

A

o Distraction – vague argument
o Operant conditioning – BUT doesn’t explain how constant FAF works
o Slowing down – But it works when you talk fast too
o Other changes in speech parameters like intensity and f0. But intensity is usually lower under FAF. (? Not sure)
o The FAF acts like a second voice in choral speech (this is what SpeechEasy says is the reason) – BUT it doesn’t work nearly as well as choral speech
o Stimulation of auditory cortex in general

53
Q

Response contingent stimulation (operant conditioning)

A

o Remember that by definition reinforcement is making response more likely and punishment is making response less likely
o Has been shown to decrease stuttering under many conditions, including punishments that were not really negative (e.g., saying “tree”) – both punishment for stuttering and reinforcing for fluent speech
o Also showed to increase stuttering when they tried to reinforce that – but it’s hard to interpret those results because you never know whether someone would just fake stutter more on purpose to get rewarded
o Lidcombe is based on operant conditioning
o Theoretical explanations
 Operant conditioning – but this is not an explanation, just an observation that it works
 Attention is called to the stuttering
 Distraction
 Changes in sensorimotor processes (??)

54
Q

Speech motor control during stuttering

A

o Most studies look at laryngeal measurements because they are the most straightforward and objective
o Older study found that during moment of stuttering, person would contract abductors and adductors simultaneously (antagonistic activity)
o BUT we later learned that not only do fluent speakers have at least some antagonistic activity, but all muscle movements involved antagonistic activity to some extent
o It is unclear whether stutterers may do it more, less, or differently than fluent speakers

55
Q

Speech motor control during perceptually fluent speech

A

o Reaction time studies
 Stutterers are slower at initiating speech – phonated or voiceless words
 …and slower at initiating any motor task (finger, arm, etc.)
o Acoustic studies
 Temporal parameters
• Stutterers have slower:
o VOT (time between release of voiceless consonant and onset of phonation for the rest of the word)
o CV transition (formant transitions, seen on spectrogram)
o Vowel duration
o …note that these slower parameters are measurable but not perceptually noticeable
• Spatial parameters
o No difference in where/how much they move their articulators, or how much the formants shift