1 / 14

Children’s perception of their phonologically modified speech

Children’s perception of their phonologically modified speech. Sofia Strömbergsson KTH Speech , Music and Hearing. [tu:b] ≠. The tube?. No, not the tube! The tube!. Dive me the tube. Phonological impairment (PI). Phonological impairment (PI).

kaseem-hawkins
Download Presentation

Children’s perception of their phonologically modified speech

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Children’s perception oftheirphonologicallymodifiedspeech Sofia Strömbergsson KTH Speech, Music and Hearing

  2. [tu:b] ≠ The tube? No, not the tube! The tube! Dive me the tube. Phonologicalimpairment (PI)

  3. Phonologicalimpairment (PI)

  4. How do children – with and without PI – perceive their own recorded (original and modified) speech? • For the children with PI, how does this compare to their online judgment of their deviant speech?

  5. Participants 12 childrenwith PI 4-7 ys Languagecomprehension OK /k, g, ŋ/ -> [t, d, n] 20 children w/ typicalspeech 4-7 ys Languagecomprehension OK

  6. (deviant /k/ replaced by [k], ”corrected”) (deviant /t/ replaced by [t], ”corrected”) ([t] replaced by [k], to deviant) ([k] replaced by [k], still correct)

  7. Externalidentification • Modifiedspeech I (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech II (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech III (Monkey): me/modified? • PI: Ownspeech (online): correct/incorrect? • PI: Ownspeech (rec’d): correct/incorrect?

  8. Externalidentification • Modifiedspeech I (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech II (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech III (Monkey): me/modified? • PI: Ownspeech (online): correct/incorrect? • PI: Ownspeech (rec’d): correct/incorrect?

  9. Externalidentification • Modifiedspeech I (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech II (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech III (Monkey): me/modified? • PI: Ownspeech (online): correct/incorrect? • PI: Ownspeech (rec’d): correct/incorrect?

  10. Externalidentification • Modifiedspeech I (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech II (Parrot): correct/incorrect? • Modifiedspeech III (Monkey): me/modified? • PI: Ownspeech (online): correct/incorrect? • PI: Ownspeech (rec’d): correct/incorrect?

  11. PI < nPI F(1,30) = 9.65, p = .004 Online < Rec’d t(143) = -3.64, p < .001

  12. Hard todetectmodificationwhenphonological form is unchanged. YES YES YES Worseperformance on modified stimuli? Performancedependent on accuracy?

  13. Conclusions • External perception is not the problem • Userecordings – original and/or modified – to approach the real challenge: self-monitoring

  14. Thankyou for your attention!

More Related