View All Issues
Effects of Altered Auditory and Oro-sensory Feedback on Speech Naturalness in Persons With and Without Stuttering | Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing

Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing

ISSN


ISSN


Advance Search
Information
Vol 36 No 1 (2017): .
Speech

Effects of Altered Auditory and Oro-sensory Feedback on Speech Naturalness in Persons With and Without Stuttering

PDF
  • Geetha Y.V.,
  • Sangeetha M.,
  • Sundararaju H.,
  • Sahana V.,
  • Akshatha V.,
  • Liji A.
Keywords
  • Naturalness,
  • Altered auditory feedback,
  • Oro-sensory feedback
How to Cite
Geetha Y.V., Sangeetha M., Sundararaju H., Sahana V., Akshatha V., & Liji A. (1). Effects of Altered Auditory and Oro-sensory Feedback on Speech Naturalness in Persons With and Without Stuttering. Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, 36(1), 12-19. Retrieved from http://203.129.241.91/jaiish/index.php/aiish/article/view/871

Abstract

 


Stuttering is one of the disorders of speech fluency influenced by many factors affecting the naturalness of speech. One of the major goals in stuttering management is providing natural sounding speech irrespective of the technique(s) adopted. The naturalness is measured with respectto various fluency parameters such as rate, continuity, effort, stress, intonation and rhythm, articulation and breathing pattern. There are many  fluency inducing conditions of which altered auditory feedback (AAF) strategies are widely used with various wearable devices, especially in adults with stuttering who will not benefit much with the traditional approaches. The present study aimed to examine the speech naturalness induced by 3 AAF conditions [delayed auditory feedback (DAF), frequency altered feedback (FAF) and masking auditory feedback (MAF)] and altered oro-sensory feedback in adult persons with and without stuttering (PWS and PWNS). The fluent speech samples from 25 PWS and 25 PWNS in the age range of 18 to 25 years under different AAF and altered oro-sensory feedback conditions were given to experienced speech-language pathologists (SLPs) for judging speech naturalness compared to baseline without altered feedback condition. The analyses of results revealed that speech naturalness ratings were significantly poorer in PWS compared to PWNS in all the conditions. The results are discussed with regard to the nature of variability and the influence of various feedback conditions on speech naturalness.

PDF

References

  1. Armson, J., & Kiefte, M. (2008). The effect of SpeechEasy on stuttering frequency, speech rate and speech naturalness. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 33, 120-134.
  2. Armson, J., & Stuart, A. (1998). Effect of extended exposure to frequency altered feedback on stuttering during reading and monologue. Journal of Speech, Language,and Hearing Research, 41, 479-490.
  3. Block, S., Ingham, R. J., & Bench, R. J. (1996). The effects of the Edinburgh Masker on stuttering. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 24, 11-19.
  4. Borsel, W., & Eeckhout, H. (2008). The speech naturalness of people who stutter speaking under delayed auditory feedback as perceived by different groups of listeners. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 33(3), 241-251.
  5. Costello-Ingham, J. C. (1993). Current status of stuttering and behavior modification-I: Recent trends in the application of behavior modification in children and adults. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 18, 27-55.
  6. Curlee, R. F. (1993). Evaluating treatment efficacy for adults: Assessing stuttering disability. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 18, 319-331.
  7. Franken, C. F., Boves, L., Peters, H. F. M., & Webster,R. L (1992). Perceptual evaluation of the speech before and after fluency shaping therapy. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 17, 223-241.
  8. Fukawa, T., Yoshioko, H., Ozawa, E., & Yoshida, S. (1988).Difference of susceptibility to delayed auditory feedback between stutterers and non stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 475-479.
  9. Gracco, V. L. (1991). Sensorimotor mechanisms in speech motor control. In H.F.M. Peters, W. Hulstijn, & C.W. Starkweather (Eds.), Speech motor control and stuttering. New York: Elsevier.
  10. Gracco, V. L., & Abbs, J. H. (1989). Sensorimotor characteristics of speech motor sequences. Experimental Brain Research, 75, 586-598.
  11. Hargrave, S., Kalinowski, J., Stuart, A., Armson, J., &Jones, K. (1994). Effect of frequency altered feedback on stuttering frequency at normal and fast speech rates. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1313- 1319.
  12. Howell, P. (1990). Changes in voice level caused by several forms of altered auditory feedback in fluent speakers and stutterers. Language and Speech, 33, 325-338.
  13. Howell, P. (2004). Effects of delayed auditory feedback and frequency-shifted feedback on speech control and some potentials for future development of prosthetic aids for stammering. Stammering Research, 1, 31-46.
  14. Howell, P., El-Yaniv, N., & Powell, D. J. (1987). Factors affecting fluency in stutterers when speaking under altered auditory feedback. In H. Peters & W. Hulstijin (Eds.),Speech motor dynamics in stuttering (Please Provide page numbers). New York: Springer Press.
  15. Howell, P., Wingfield, T., & Johnson, M. (1988). Characteristics of the speech of stutterers during normal and altered auditory feedback. Proceedings Speech 88, 3,1069-1076.
  16. Ingham, R. J., Gow, M., & Costello, J. M. (1985). Stuttering and speech naturalness: Some additional data. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 217-219.
  17. Ingham, R. J., Kilgo, M., Ingham, J. C., Moglia, R., Belknap, H., & Sanchez, T. (2001). Evaluation of a stuttering treatment based on reduction of short phonation intervals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1229-1244.
  18. Ingham, R. J., & Packman, A. C. (1978). Perceptual assessment of normalcy of speech following stuttering therapy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 63-73.
  19. Kalinowski, J., Noble, S., Armson, J., & Stuart A. (1994).Naturalness ratings of the pre-treatment and post-treatment speech of adults with mild and severe stuttering. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 3, 61-66
  20. Kalinowski, J., Stuart, A., Sark, S., & Armson, J. (1996). Stuttering amelioration at various auditory feedback delays and speech rates. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31, 259-269.
  21. Kanchan, S. & Savithri, S. R. (1997). Multi dimensional speech naturalness scale for stutterers. Dissertation Abstracts of AIISH, Mysore.
  22. Keyhoe, T. D. (1998). Computers and electronic devices for stuttering therapy. In E.C. Healey & H.F.M. Peters (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Fluency Disorders (pp. 262-266). Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press.
  23. Lechner, B. K. (1970). The effects of delayed auditory feedback and masking on the fundamental frequency of stutterers and non-stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 343-353.
  24. Macleod, J., Kalinowski, J., Stuart, A., & Armson, J. (1995). Effect of single and combined altered auditory feedback on stuttering frequency at two speech rates. Journal of Communication Disorders, 28, 217-228.
  25. Martin, R., Haroldson, S., & Triden, K. (1984). Stuttering and speech naturalness. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 53-58.
  26. Natke, U., Grosser, J., & Kalveram, K. T. (2001). Fluency, fundamental frequency, and speech rate under frequency-shifted auditory feedback in stuttering and non stuttering persons. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26(3), 227-241.
  27. Onslow, M., Costa, L., Andrews, C., Harrison, E., & Packman, A. (1996). Speech outcomes of a prolonged-speech treatment for stuttering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 734-749.
  28. Onslow, M., & Ingham, R. J (1987). Speech quality measurement and the management of stuttering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 2-17.
  29. Perkins, W. H. (1979). Psychoanalysis to disco ordination In Controversies about Stuttering Therapy, H. H. Gregory University Park: Baltimore.
  30. Riley, G. (1994). The Stuttering Severity Instrument for adults and children (SSI-3) (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED
  31. Runyan, C. M., & Adams, M. R. (1978). Perceptual study of the speech of `successfully therapeutized' stutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 3, 25-39.
  32. Runyan, C. M., & Adams, M. R. (1979). Unsophisticated judges perceptual evaluations of the speech of `successfully treated' stutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders,4, 29-38.
  33. Sanders, W. C., Gramlich, C., & Levine, A. (1981). Naturalness of synthesized speech. In P. Suppes (Ed.). University level computer assisted instructions at Stanford (1968-80), 487-501. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
  34. Smith, A., Sadagopan, N., Walsh, B., & Weber-Fox, C.(2010). Phonological Complexity Affects Speech Motor Dynamics in Adults Who Stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 35, 1-18.
  35. Soderberg, G. A. (1959). A study of the effects of delayed auditory side-tone on four aspects of stutterer's speech during oral reading and spontaneous speech. Dissertation (Doctoral) - University Microfilms, The Ohio State University, Ohio.
  36. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Armson, J., Stenstrom, R., & Jones, K. (1996). Fluency effect of frequency alterations of plus/minus one-half and one-quarter octave shifts in auditory feedback of people who stutter. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 396-401.
  37. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., & Rastatter, M. P. (1997). Effect of monaural and binaural altered auditory feedback on stuttering frequency. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3806-3809.
  38. Stuart, A., & Kalinowski, J. (2004). The perception of speech naturalness of post-therapeutic and altered auditory feedback speech of adults with mild and severe stuttering. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 56, 347- 357.
  39. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Rastatter, M., Saltuklaroglu, T.,& Dayalu, V. (2004). Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: Initial fitting and 4-month follow- up. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 93-119.
  40. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Saltuklaroglu, T., & Guntupalli, V. K. (2006). Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: One-year follow-up. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 757-765.
  41. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Rastatter, M. P., & Lynch, K. (2002). Effect of delayed auditory feedback on normal speakers at two speech rates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 2237-2241.
  42. Sutton, S., Roehrig, W.C., & Kramer, J. (1963). Delayed auditory feedback of speech in schizophrenics and normals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 105(15), 832-844.
  43. Uthappa, A. G. V., Shailat, P., & Geetha, Y. V. (2010). Effect of oral anesthetization on fluency. Paper presented at the 42nd India Speech and Hearing Association conference held in Mangalore.
  44. Van Borsel, J., & Eeckhout, H. (2008). The speech naturalness of people who stutter speaking under delayed auditory feedback as perceived by different groups of listeners. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 33,241-251.
  45. Van Borsel, J., Reunes, G., & Van den Bergh, N. (2003).Delayed auditory feedback in the treatment of stuttering: Clients as consumers. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 38(2), 119-129.
  46. Wingate, M. E. (1976). Stuttering: Theory and Treatment.Irvington: New York.