monitoring error repair and disfluency Paul Brocklehurst monitoring

monitoring, error repair and disfluency Paul Brocklehurst

monitoring, error repair and disfluency in both normal and stuttered speech Background theory & research • Covert Repair Hypothesis • Vicious Circle Hypothesis Our own stuff • Speakers’ perceptions of disfluency in the speech of others • Perfectionism & disfluency

self-monitoring of speech • monitoring our own speech while speaking – We all do it

self-monitoring of speech • monitoring our own speech while speaking – We all do it – but to varying extents

self-monitoring of speech • monitoring our own speech while speaking • Appropriacy of message – Do I really want to say this? • Linguistic quality – – Syntax Words Phonology Timing/speech-rate • Acoustic quality – Loudness – Pitch – Clarity See Levelt (1989) for an in depth discussion

self-monitoring of speech • Overt speech – Auditory feedback • Just like monitoring other people’s speech • Relatively slow – Proprioceptive & stretch receptor feedback • Dependent on prior knowledge of what speech feels like • Relatively slow • Inner speech – Monitoring the inner-voice (~ = monitoring thoughts) • Fast

Errors & error-repair • “errors” do not normally disrupt the flow of speech; • however, error repairs do.

Errors & error-repair • Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they are able to detect and repair errors as quickly as possible. • Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they detect and repair errors covertly in inner speech – before articulation begins

Errors & error-repair • Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they are able to detect and repair errors as quickly as possible. • Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they edit their speech covertly in inner speech – before articulation begins • But for this they might have to slow down

Covert Repair Hypothesis Postma & Kolk (1993) From a listeners perspective, many covert repairs sound like stuttering-like disfluencies. – E. g. he asked Roger… Robert for dinner he asked Ro … Robert for dinner he asked R … Robert for dinner slow detection faster detection even faster detection

Covert Repair Hypothesis Postma & Kolk (1993) • PWS are disfluent because their phonological encoding abilities are impaired – they make (and covertly repair) many phonological encoding errors – Their covert repairs also contain errors… sparking off more repairs

Stuttering phenomenology – no problem with phonology in inner-speech Picture copied from: http: //www. mnsu. edu/comdis/isad 7/papers/badmington 7/badmington 17. html

The Vicious Circle Hypothesis Vasić and Wijnen (2005) • Abandons the assumption that phonological encoding is impaired in PWS. • Keeps the core assumption of the Covert Repair Hypothesis, – that disfluencies are covert self-corrections. • Self corrections of WHAT?

The Vicious Circle Hypothesis Vasić and Wijnen (2005) • PWS try to repair/correct their disfluencies • “Our proposal is, paradoxically, that individuals who stutter do so because they are trying to avoid it”.

The Vicious Circle Hypothesis Vasić and Wijnen (2005) • PWS have become hypersensitive to their normal disfluencies • they apply overly strict acceptability criteria. • They consider disfluencies to be “errors”

The Vicious Circle Hypothesis Vasić and Wijnen (2005) • PWS have become hypersensitive to their normal disfluencies • they apply overly strict acceptability criteria. • They consider disfluencies to be “errors”

The Vicious Circle Hypothesis Vasić and Wijnen (2005) • PWS have become hypersensitive to their normal disfluencies • they apply overly strict acceptability criteria. • They consider disfluencies to be “errors” 2 pieces of research that relate to the VCH…

Listener ratings of fluent and normally disfluent speech Lickley et al. (2005)

Listener ratings of disfluencies Lickley et al. (2005) Relative fluency rating Listeners were asked to rate recordings of fluent and normally disfluent speech spoken by PWS and PNS Type of speech recording • Recordings of PWS were rated more negatively irrespective of whether or not those recordings contained disfluencies. • Findings suggest even fluent speech of PWS is not normal

PWS sensitivity to disfluencies Lickley et al. (2005) Relative fluency rating Listeners were asked to rate recordings of fluent and disfluent speech spoken by PWS and PNS Type of speech recording • Recordings of PWS were rated more negatively irrespective of whether or not those recordings contained disfluencies. • Findings suggest even fluent speech of PWS is not normal

PWS sensitivity to disfluencies Lickley et al. (2005) Relative fluency rating Listeners were asked to rate recordings of fluent and disfluent speech spoken by PWS and PNS Type of speech recording • Recordings of PWS were rated more negatively irrespective of whether or not those recordings contained disfluencies. • Findings suggest even fluent speech of PWS is not normal

PWS sensitivity to disfluencies Lickley et al. (2005) Listeners who stutter were also asked to rate the same recordings Relative fluency rating 0. 20 0. 10 0. 00 Type of speech recording -0. 10 PWS fluent -0. 20 PWS disfluent -0. 30 PNS fluent PNS disfluent -0. 40 -0. 50 ratings by listeners who stutter ratings by non-stuttering listeners • All ratings made by listeners who stutter were more negative. • Suggests PWS are more sensitive to disfluencies… and/or more likely to interpret speech as disfluent.

PWS sensitivity to disfluencies Lickley et al. (2005) Listeners who stutter were also asked to rate the same recordings Relative fluency rating 0. 20 0. 10 0. 00 Type of speech recording -0. 10 PWS fluent -0. 20 PWS disfluent -0. 30 PNS fluent PNS disfluent -0. 40 -0. 50 ratings by listeners who stutter ratings by non-stuttering listeners • All ratings made by listeners who stutter were more negative. • Suggests PWS are more sensitive to disfluencies… and/or more likely to interpret speech as disfluent.

PWS sensitivity to disfluencies Lickley et al. (2005) Listeners who stutter were also asked to rate the same recordings Relative fluency rating 0. 20 0. 10 0. 00 Type of speech recording -0. 10 PWS fluent -0. 20 PWS disfluent -0. 30 PNS fluent PNS disfluent -0. 40 -0. 50 ratings by listeners who stutter ratings by non-stuttering listeners • All ratings made by listeners who stutter were more negative. • Suggests PWS are more sensitive to disfluencies… and/or more likely to interpret speech as disfluent.

PWS sensitivity to disfluencies Lickley et al. (2005) Conclusion • “the self-monitor becomes hyper-vigilant because the speaker is aware that his/her speech is habitually deviant, even when it is not, strictly speaking, disfluent”.

Perfectionism and disfluency Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted)

Perfectionism and disfluency Perhaps a perfectionistic personality may lead to hypervigilant monitoring, and a tendency to evaluate minor disfluencies as “errors”

Perfectionism “demanding of oneself or others a higher quality of performance than is required by the situation” (Hollender, 1965, p 94)

Perfectionism Amster (1995) Burns perfectionism scale completed by respondents twice – current and retrospective (“how you would have answered it as a young child”) 10 Mean Burns Perfectionism Score 8 6 4 PWS 2 controls 0 -2 -4 -6 retrospective current “People Who Stutter tend to be significantly more perfectionistic than people who do not stutter” 47 PWS (mean age 41. 65) 22 controls (mean age 43. 76) ANOVA, main effect: stutterers vs. controls, F= 10. 91 p =. 0012

Perfectionism Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted) An online survey – Replicate and extend Amster’s (1995) findings using the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS: Frost et al. , 1990)

Perfectionism Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted) Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) (Frost et al. , 1990) 1. Concern over mistakes • 2. e. g. “as a child I was punished for doing things less than perfectly” e. g. “even when I do something carefully, I often feel that it is not quite right” Organization • • • e. g. “My parents set very high standards for me” Doubts about actions • 6. e. g. “I set higher goals than most people” Parental criticism • 5. Parental expectations • 4. e. g. “I should be upset if I make a mistake” Personal standards • 3. – 35 statements – 6 factors e. g. “Organization is very important to me” Respondents give Likert style ratings… 1= totally agree, 5=totally disagree On all subscales, higher scores equated with perfectionistic personality

Perfectionism Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted) • 81 people who stutter • 82 non-stuttering controls – all respondents completed the FMPS – respondents who stutter also gave ratings of “difficulty speaking fluently” - in 10 different common speaking situations. • PWS disfluency scores were based on the OASES self-rating scale. Yaruss & Quesal, 2006)

Perfectionism Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted) Questions… • Do respondents’ FMPS self-ratings predict whether or not they belong to the group of respondents who stutter? • Do stuttering respondents’ FMPS self-ratings predict how much difficulty they experience speaking fluently? Multiple regression analyses

Perfectionism Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted) Findings Stuttering group membership predicted by • Raised “Concern over Mistakes” • Lower “Personal Standards” PWS n = 59 Controls n = 57

Perfectionism Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted) Findings PWS: Difficulty speaking fluently predicted by • Raised “Concern over Mistakes” • Lower “Personal Standards” PWS n = 81

Perfectionism Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted) Conclusions • (1) Stuttering, and (2) severity of disfluency (in respondents who stutter) are both related to… • High levels of Concern over Mistakes • Low Personal Standards • This is not a “perfectionistic” profile – These findings do not suggest that respondents who stutter are more perfectionistic than controls. • This FMPS profile may reflect attempts of respondents’ who stutter to adapt to an underlying speech/language impairment • Lowering personal speaking standards may be of benefit to PWS, although the underlying impairment still remains.

Summary To classify something as an “error” frequently involves • Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can assist listener comprehension by forcing the speaker to slow down Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

Summary To classify something as an “error” frequently involves • Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can assist listener comprehension by forcing the speaker to slow down Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

Summary To classify something as an “error” frequently involves • Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can help listeners to remember what has been said Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

Summary To classify something as an “error” frequently involves • Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can assist listener comprehension by forcing the speaker to slow down Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

Thank you Any questions? ? ?

References Amster, B. J. (1995). Perfectionism and stuttering. In C. Starkweather, & H. (. Peters, Stuttering: proceedings of first world congress on fluency disorders (pp. 540 -543). Nijmegen, Netherlands: Nijmegen University Press. Frost, R. O. , Marten, P. , Lahart, C. , & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Researach, 14 , 449 -468. Hockett, C. F. (1973). Where the tongue slips, there slip I. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed. ), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (pp. 93 -119). The Hague: Mouton. Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: Cambridge MIT Press. Lickley, R. , Hartsuiker, R. J. , Corley, M. , Russell, M. , & Nelson, R. (2005). Judgment of disfluency in people who stutter and people who do not stutter: Results from magnitude estimation. Language and Speech, 48 , 299– 312. Postma, A. , & Kolk, H. (1993). The covert repair hypothesis: Prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36 , 472 -487. Vasić, N. , & Wijnen, F. (2005). Stuttering as a monitoring deficit. In R. J. Hartsuiker, Y. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds. ), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 226 -247). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Yaruss, J. S. , & Quesal, R. W. (2006). Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES): Documenting multiple outcomes in stuttering treatment. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 31 , 90 -115.