Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Lesley Wolk

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 2. From the 16 participants (n=8 Stuttering-Only; n=8 Stuttering + Language Disordered), the average of the median values (and Standard Error bar for Phonological Neighborhood Density (i.e., how many words are in the “neighborhood,” or created by adding, substituting or deleting one phoneme fro the target word) are shown for Stuttered words and matched Fluent Words. All words were “content” in function (i.e., nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives

Figure 2 From the 16 participants (n=8 Stuttering-Only; n=8 Stuttering + Language Disordered), the average of the median values (and Standard Error bar for Phonological Neighborhood Density (i.e., how many words are in the “neighborhood,” or created by adding, substituting or deleting one phoneme fro the target word) are shown for Stuttered words and matched Fluent Words. All words were “content” in function (i.e., nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives

Related Figures (5)

FHP = Family History Positive = Yes, No or Not known; Onset (mos) = chronological age at onset in months; Sample length = Number of words described in mazed words/unmazed words and proportions; Number of Communication Units (CU) occurring per sample; Average number of Words per Communication Unit (W/CU); Average Number of Dependent Clauses per CU (DC/CU). demand. Children who exhibit stuttering plus a language disorder might also have more difficulty with greater phonolog- ical complexity. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between language skills, phonological complexity, and dysfluency. The research questions in the current study were: (1) In terms of disfluency types and/or phonological measures of stuttered content words, do school-age children and adolescents who stutter differ from peers who stutter and exhibit a concomitant language disorder? And (2) Do stuttered content words differ from matched fluent words on two measures of phonological complexity, the Index of Phonological Complexity and the Word Complexity Measure?
FHP = Family History Positive = Yes, No or Not known; Onset (mos) = chronological age at onset in months; Sample length = Number of words described in mazed words/unmazed words and proportions; Number of Communication Units (CU) occurring per sample; Average number of Words per Communication Unit (W/CU); Average Number of Dependent Clauses per CU (DC/CU). demand. Children who exhibit stuttering plus a language disorder might also have more difficulty with greater phonolog- ical complexity. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between language skills, phonological complexity, and dysfluency. The research questions in the current study were: (1) In terms of disfluency types and/or phonological measures of stuttered content words, do school-age children and adolescents who stutter differ from peers who stutter and exhibit a concomitant language disorder? And (2) Do stuttered content words differ from matched fluent words on two measures of phonological complexity, the Index of Phonological Complexity and the Word Complexity Measure?
z———_— Means (M), Medians (Mdn) and ranges, in parentheses, of the number of words, syllables, and clauses per C-Unit for non-duplicated Communication-Units (C-Units, that included either the Stuttered or Fluent word from the Stuttering-Only participants (N= 30-36 C-Units) and from the Stuttering + Language Delayed participants (N= 26-33 C-Units). Word position of the stuttered content word and of the matched fluent word, Number of Stuttered words (i.e, whole-word repetitions, sound-syllable repetitions, audible sound prolongations, and blocks) and Number of Other disfluencies (i.e., phrase repe- titions, revisions and interjections) per C-Unit are shown. These measures differed significantly between Stuttered and Fluent Words at a p<0.008, as indicated (*). S+LD). Secondly, the S+LD participants produced significantly (p =0.004) more Other Disfluencies (i.e., phrase repetitions, revisions and interjections) in the C-Units including the fluent words (N=29; Mdn=1; M=1.55; Range = 0-6) than did their Stuttering-Only peers (N= 33; Mdn=0; M=0.70; Range = 0-3 Other Disfluencies/C-Unit). These were methodological checks of the data, but each of these two significant findings appear consistent with the phenomena of: (a) disfluency clustering (Hubbard & Yairi, 1988; LaSalle & Conture, 1995; Logan & LaSalle, 1999; Sawyer & Yairi, 2010); and (b) the frequently reported findings that individuals who show language disorders produce more mazing, vocal hesitations, or “other disfluencies” (e.g., Bloodstein & Bernstein Ratner, 2008; Boscolo, Bernstein Ratner, & Rescorla, 2002; Guo, Tomblin, & Samelson, 2008).
z———_— Means (M), Medians (Mdn) and ranges, in parentheses, of the number of words, syllables, and clauses per C-Unit for non-duplicated Communication-Units (C-Units, that included either the Stuttered or Fluent word from the Stuttering-Only participants (N= 30-36 C-Units) and from the Stuttering + Language Delayed participants (N= 26-33 C-Units). Word position of the stuttered content word and of the matched fluent word, Number of Stuttered words (i.e, whole-word repetitions, sound-syllable repetitions, audible sound prolongations, and blocks) and Number of Other disfluencies (i.e., phrase repe- titions, revisions and interjections) per C-Unit are shown. These measures differed significantly between Stuttered and Fluent Words at a p<0.008, as indicated (*). S+LD). Secondly, the S+LD participants produced significantly (p =0.004) more Other Disfluencies (i.e., phrase repetitions, revisions and interjections) in the C-Units including the fluent words (N=29; Mdn=1; M=1.55; Range = 0-6) than did their Stuttering-Only peers (N= 33; Mdn=0; M=0.70; Range = 0-3 Other Disfluencies/C-Unit). These were methodological checks of the data, but each of these two significant findings appear consistent with the phenomena of: (a) disfluency clustering (Hubbard & Yairi, 1988; LaSalle & Conture, 1995; Logan & LaSalle, 1999; Sawyer & Yairi, 2010); and (b) the frequently reported findings that individuals who show language disorders produce more mazing, vocal hesitations, or “other disfluencies” (e.g., Bloodstein & Bernstein Ratner, 2008; Boscolo, Bernstein Ratner, & Rescorla, 2002; Guo, Tomblin, & Samelson, 2008).
Participant profiles from the Howell et al. (2009) Online Database: Most frequently occurring stutter type on the set of content stuttered words for each member of each talker group. Stuttering-Only participants (Left) and Stuttering + Language Disordered participants (Right). Stutter types included Whole- word repetitions (WWR), Sound-syllable repetitions (SSR), Audible sound prolongations (Aud.prolong.), and Inaudible sound prolongations or “Blocks’ (Block). Number of phonemes per word ranged from two to twelve, also with no difference (p > 0.5) across stuttered and fluent words for the S-O group (M=4.76-4.93 phonemes; Mdn=4-5; Range =2-12), and for the S+LD group (M=4.24-4.67 syllables; Mdn = 4-5; Range = 2-8). Finally, there was no difference (p>0.5) on word familiarity between stuttered and fluent words for the S-O group (M=6.9; Mdn=7; Range =5.7-7) and S+LD group (M=6.9; Mdn=7; Range =6.5-7).
Participant profiles from the Howell et al. (2009) Online Database: Most frequently occurring stutter type on the set of content stuttered words for each member of each talker group. Stuttering-Only participants (Left) and Stuttering + Language Disordered participants (Right). Stutter types included Whole- word repetitions (WWR), Sound-syllable repetitions (SSR), Audible sound prolongations (Aud.prolong.), and Inaudible sound prolongations or “Blocks’ (Block). Number of phonemes per word ranged from two to twelve, also with no difference (p > 0.5) across stuttered and fluent words for the S-O group (M=4.76-4.93 phonemes; Mdn=4-5; Range =2-12), and for the S+LD group (M=4.24-4.67 syllables; Mdn = 4-5; Range = 2-8). Finally, there was no difference (p>0.5) on word familiarity between stuttered and fluent words for the S-O group (M=6.9; Mdn=7; Range =5.7-7) and S+LD group (M=6.9; Mdn=7; Range =6.5-7).
Results are shown for each of the five measures, Index of Phonological Complexity through Neighborhood Frequency, in Means (M), Medians (Mdn) and ranges, in parentheses, for the corpus of pairs of stuttered content and matched fluent words from the 8 speakers who are Stuttering-Only (N= 54) versus the n=8 who are Stuttering + Language Disordered (LD) (N=51). Beneath each talker group data are the combined data, the averages (M, Mdn) and Standard Errors (SE) of the medians per each of the 16 participants. Three of these five measures differed significantly between Stuttered and Fluent Words at p< 0.01, as indicated (*).
Results are shown for each of the five measures, Index of Phonological Complexity through Neighborhood Frequency, in Means (M), Medians (Mdn) and ranges, in parentheses, for the corpus of pairs of stuttered content and matched fluent words from the 8 speakers who are Stuttering-Only (N= 54) versus the n=8 who are Stuttering + Language Disordered (LD) (N=51). Beneath each talker group data are the combined data, the averages (M, Mdn) and Standard Errors (SE) of the medians per each of the 16 participants. Three of these five measures differed significantly between Stuttered and Fluent Words at p< 0.01, as indicated (*).
Fig. 1. The average of the median values of IPC or Index of Phonological Complexity (Jakielski et al., 2006) and WCM or Word Complexity Measure (Stoel Gammon, 2010) on Stuttered Words and matched Fluent Words from the 16 participants (n=8 Stuttering-Only; n=8 Stuttering + Language Disordered) Standard Error bars are shown for each of the measures. All words were “content” in function (i.e., nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives).
Fig. 1. The average of the median values of IPC or Index of Phonological Complexity (Jakielski et al., 2006) and WCM or Word Complexity Measure (Stoel Gammon, 2010) on Stuttered Words and matched Fluent Words from the 16 participants (n=8 Stuttering-Only; n=8 Stuttering + Language Disordered) Standard Error bars are shown for each of the measures. All words were “content” in function (i.e., nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives).
Related topics:
PsychologyPhoneticsFluency disordersMedicineLanguage disordersLanguage Culture and CommunicationMedicine and Health SciencesPhonological ComplexityPsychology and Cognitive SciencesMedical and Health Sciences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved