Production and Perception of Place of Articulation Errors

78 Pages·2015·0.87 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff SSoouutthh FFlloorriiddaa
DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss @@ UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff
SSoouutthh FFlloorriiddaa
USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations USF Graduate Theses and Dissertations
3-31-2006
PPrroodduuccttiioonn aanndd PPeerrcceeppttiioonn ooff PPllaaccee ooff AArrttiiccuullaattiioonn EErrrroorrss
Adrienne M. Stearns
University of South Florida
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd
Part of the American Studies Commons
SScchhoollaarr CCoommmmoonnss CCiittaattiioonn
Stearns, Adrienne M., "Production and Perception of Place of Articulation Errors" (2006). USF Tampa
Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/3891
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the USF Graduate Theses and Dissertations at Digital
Commons @ University of South Florida. It has been accepted for inclusion in USF Tampa Graduate Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. For more
information, please contact [e-mail].
Production and Perception of Place of Articulation Errors

by

Adrienne M. Stearns

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Florida

Major Professor: Stefan A. Frisch, Ph.D.
Catherine L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Jean C. Krause, Ph.D.

Date of Approval:
March 31, 2006

Keywords: ultrasound, articulatory gestures, slips of the tongue,
consonants, tongue twister

© Copyright 2006, Adrienne M. Stearns
Dedication

This thesis project is dedicated to Tom Sievers, for his unwavering support and
constant encouragement. Without his love, steadfastness, and occasional capering,
I would not have had the confidence or strength to finish this journey.
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank friends and family that have supported me and given me
encouragement during this project. First of all, I would like to express how much I have
enjoyed working with my thesis chair, Dr. Stefan Frisch. His support and patience
helped me complete this thesis, which I am very proud of, and provided me with an
opportunity to learn more about ultrasound research and contribute to the field.
Dr. Frisch was always dependable and flexible, and I benefited greatly from having him
as a mentor.
I would like to thank my committee member Dr. Catherine Rogers for showing
me how interesting speech science is. I would also like to thank my committee member
Dr. Jean Krause for her encouragement and support during this project. Thanks to both
of you for your insightful comments and for your contributions to a lively and
entertaining defense.
I would like to thank my friends who have tried to keep me on an even keel
during the last two years. Danielle Melowic and Shannon Weekley have always cheered
me on while providing a good laugh when it was needed. It has been a joy to work with
Sylvie Wodzinski in the lab and I have come to count her as a true friend.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their ever-present encouragement.
My parents, Robert and Freda Stearns, and my aunt and uncle, Pat and Paul Stearns,
always told me that I could do anything I wanted to. Their support bolstered my
determination to complete this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables.....................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures....................................................................................................................iv
Abstract..............................................................................................................................vi
Chapter One: Introduction.................................................................................................1
Patterns Observed in Research on Naturally Occurring Speech Errors..........................2
Patterns Observed in Research on Experimentally Induced Speech Errors...................6
Speech Error Assessment Utilizing Instrumentation......................................................8
Ultrasound and Speech Error Research........................................................................10
Purpose..........................................................................................................................13
Chapter Two: Ultrasound Error Elicitation......................................................................14
Stimuli...........................................................................................................................14
Participants................................................................................................................15
Procedure..................................................................................................................16
Measurement.................................................................................................................17
Results...........................................................................................................................20
P1..............................................................................................................................25
P2..............................................................................................................................30
P3..............................................................................................................................34
P4..............................................................................................................................38
Discussion.....................................................................................................................41
Chapter Three: Perception of Place of Articulation Errors..............................................44
Stimuli...........................................................................................................................44
i
Procedure..................................................................................................................45
Participants................................................................................................................45
Results...........................................................................................................................45
Identification.............................................................................................................46
Reaction Times.........................................................................................................49
Discussion.....................................................................................................................54
Chapter Four: Conclusions/Discussion............................................................................55
Conclusions...................................................................................................................55
Discussion.....................................................................................................................56
Clinical Uses.................................................................................................................58
References.........................................................................................................................61
Appendix A: Perception Results for Each Stimulus........................................................64

ii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Tongue twisters read by participants..............................................................15
Table 2 Stimulus classification system........................................................................24
Table 3 Category classification of P1’s productions...................................................27
Table 4 Category classification of P2’s productions...................................................32
Table 5 Category classification of P3’s productions...................................................35
Table 6 Category classification of P4’s productions...................................................39
Table 7 Number of stimulus presentations by category and percentage of error
selection by listeners.......................................................................................47
Table 8 Reaction times and z-scores for perception of alveolar production
targets..............................................................................................................51
Table 9 Reaction times and z-scores for perception of velar production targets.........51

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Sagittal view of the tongue body with ultrasound; tongue tip to the
right.................................................................................................................12
Figure 2 Cushion-scanning technique within head stabilizing frame...........................17
Figure 3 Measurements applied to ultrasound image of the tongue.............................18
Figure 4 Ultrasound images of alveolar (top) and velar (bottom) productions
with mean and 2 SD ranges depicted for tongue dorsum and tongue
blade................................................................................................................22
Figure 5 Standard deviations surrounding means and ranges of productions for
blade angle and dorsum distance for P1.........................................................26
Figure 6 Articulations for P1 delineated by vowel and baseline, alveolar, and
velar productions by blade angle and dorsum distance..................................29
Figure 7 Standard deviations surrounding means and ranges of productions for
blade angle and dorsum distance for P2.........................................................31
Figure 8 Articulations for P2 delineated by vowel and baseline, alveolar, and
velar productions by blade angle and dorsum distance..................................33
Figure 9 Standard deviations surrounding means and ranges of productions for
blade angle and dorsum distance for P3.........................................................34
Figure 10 Articulations for P3 delineated by vowel and baseline, alveolar, and
velar productions by blade angle and dorsum distance..................................37
Figure 11 Standard deviations surrounding means and ranges of productions for
blade angle and dorsum distance for P4.........................................................38
Figure 12 Articulations for P4 delineated by vowel and baseline, alveolar, and
velar productions by blade angle and dorsum distance..................................40
Figure 13 Distributions of perceptual judgements..........................................................49
iv
Figure 14 Reaction time to stimuli on the basis of production target and 3-way
error categorization.........................................................................................53

v
Production and Perception of Place of Articulation Errors
Adrienne M. Stearns
ABSTRACT

Speech errors have been utilized since the beginning of the last century to learn
more about how speech is produced, both physically and cognitively. Collection of
speech errors has progressed from writing down naturally occurring speech errors to
recording experimentally induced speech errors to current studies, which are using
instrumentation to record acoustic and kinematic information about experimentally
induced speech errors. One type of instrumentation being used in articulatory research is
ultrasound. Ultrasound is gaining popularity for use by those interested in learning how
speech is physically produced because of its portability and noninvasiveness. Ultrasound
of the tongue during speech provides visual access to the articulatory movements of the
tongue.
This study utilizes ultrasound recordings of speech errors in two ways. In
Experiment 1, ultrasound images of participants’ tongues were recorded while they read
tongue twisters designed to elicit speech errors. The tongue twisters were CVC words or
CV syllables with onset velar or alveolar stops. Within the ultrasound video, the angle of
the tongue blade and elevation of the tongue dorsum were measured during the onset stop
closure. Measurements of tongue twisters were compared to baseline production
vi