Motor programming: Possible application to speech production

1. Motor programming: Possible application to speech production David L. Wright Human Performance Laboratories Texas A&M University

2. A starting point • Knock, T.R., Ballard, K.J., Robin, D.A., & Schmidt, R.A. (2000). Influence of order of stimulus presentation on speech motor learning: A principled approach to treatment for apraxia of speech. Aphasiology, 14, 653-668. • Clark, & Robin, D.A. (1998). Generalized motor programme and parameterization accuracy in apraxia of speech and conduction aphasia. Aphasiology, 12, 699-713.

3. Lee & Magill (1985)

4. Theoretical Positions • Elaborative processing (Shea & Zimny, 1983; 1985) • focuses on structure and richness of memory representations • Forgetting-reconstruction (Lee & Magill, 1983;1985) • Emphasizes the cognitive procedures executed during a practice trial

5. Li & Wright (2000)

6. Motor Programming

7. Examining Programming • If a program for a motor sequence can be constructed prior to movement onset, the time for program preparation should be a direct reflection of the movement’s complexity • Henry & Rogers (1960) Memory Drum • Sternberg, Monsell, Knoll, & Wright (1978) – subprogram retrieval

8. Klapp’s (1995; 1996) two-process model of motor programming process • INT process focuses on the internal features of an element or chunk of movement and the time to resolve this component process depends on the complexity of the chunk (e.g., duration of response) • SEQ process focuses on sequencing multiple chunks into the correct order. This component process is determined by the number of chunks SRT-CRT

9. Klapp’s (1995; 1996) two-process model of motor programming process Important assumptions • Pre-programming of INT is possible • Pre-programming of SEQ is not possible • INT and SEQ can occur in parallel • INT takes longer to complete than SEQ

10. READY Precue “4L” END Key “GO” Key press 1 STUDY TIME REACTIONTIME ..... Chunk Complexity Duration # of Chunks N Self-Select Paradigm INT SEQ

11. INT SEQ General Approach Single-element dit (150 ms); dah (450 ms) • Multiple-element • dit-dah-dah-dit • dah-dit-dit-dah

12. Table 1. Study time, reaction time, press duration and error for dit and dah responses. M SEM Study Time dit 1051 ** 50.7 (ST) dah 1405 82.0 Reaction Time dit 259 3.9 (RT) dah 259 3.6 Press Duration dit 138 ** 2.7 (PD) dah 433 3.1 ** indicates significant difference at the .05 level. Note. SEM is standard error of mean. ST but not RT is expected to be greater for longer duration response

13. ST is expected to be greater for longer duration response in random practice Immink & Wright, JEP:HPP, 27, 423-437

14. RT should not differ between short and long duration responses for both practice conditions

15. Random practice should exhibit superior performance during retention but poorer performance during acquisition

16. RT should be greater for the multiple-element response in the case of both practice conditions

17. ST should be greater for the multiple-element response but only in the case of random practice

18. ST is expected to be greater for the longer duration response in random practice

19. RT should not differ between short and long duration responses for both practice conditions

20. CHUNKING Klapp (1995, Experiment 1): SRT Adapted from Klapp, 1995

21. One- vs. four-element sequence RT difference should diminished with practice in random condition.

22. One- vs. four-element sequence RT difference should not be diminished with practice for blocked practice.

23. One- vs. four-element sequence ST difference is diminished with practice for random practice.

24. One- vs. four-element sequence ST difference re-emerges following practice for blocked practice.

25. CI: Overview • High (rather than low) CI introduces improvements in movement execution • High (rather than low) CI supports improvements in movement preparation • Motor Programming • quicker and more resilient organization of required sub-routines • consolidation of sub-routines with no additional cost (i.e., INT)

26. Programming and Klapp’s model • Use of Self-select paradigm • Targeting INT process • Repeated segments • Targeting the SEQ process • # of Transitions

27. Table 1. Study time, reaction time, press duration and error for dit and dah responses. M SEM Study Time dit 1051 ** 50.7 (ST) dah 1405 82.0 Reaction Time dit 259 3.9 (RT) dah 259 3.6 Press Duration dit 138 ** 2.7 (PD) dah 433 3.1 ** indicates significant difference at the .05 level. Note. SEM is standard error of mean. ST but not RT is expected to be greater for longer duration response

28. RT increases when a sequence involves more elements, the nature of the element doesn’t impact SEQ.

29. ST increases for duration and for repeats

31. Programming and Movement Disorders: Parkinson’s disease and SEQ • Suggestion that the fundamental plans are intact and organizing elements into sequence is problematic (Marsden 1984) • Another suggestion is that transitioning between movement elements is major disruption (Harrington & Haaland, 1999)

34. Discrete Sequence Production Task (DSPT)

35. „A“ square 1 ‘+‘ square 2 square 3 500 -1500 ms T1 T2 T3 R1e.g.,s R2e.g.,k R3e.g.,h DSPT: Basic Protocol Basic Paradigm

36. Sequence length effect for random but not blocked practice

37. Retention test sequence length effect significantly larger following blocked practice

38. Apraxia of Speech (AOS): Is it a planning or programming problem? • Motor Planning • Van der Merwe (1997) • Motor Programming • Levelt (1989) • phonetic encoding leading to “phonetic plan” • Van Lieshout et al., (1996) • motor plan assembly and muscle command preparation

40. Motor Programming in Speech • Klapp (2003) • Two-process model • length, speech rate, # syllables • Deger & Ziegler (2002) • Role of length and transitions

41. Adapted from Deger & Ziegler (2002)

42. Motor programming in AOS: Non-speech tasks • Is this problem unique to speech apparatus or more general control problem? • speech tasks • Weismer & Forrest, 1992 • non-speech tasks • Robin et al. (1997); Ballard et al., (2000)

43. CI & AOS: Treatment • Knock, T.R., Ballard, K.J., Robin, D.A., & Schmidt, R.A. (2000). Influence of order of stimulus presentation on speech motor learning: A principled approach to treatment for apraxia of speech. Aphasiology, 14, 653-668.

44. Thanks for Listening!

45. Complexity Effect: SRT & CRT (Adapted from Klapp, 1995)