Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMaas, Edwinen_US
dc.contributor.authorMailend, Marja-Liisaen_US
dc.contributor.authorGuenther, Frank H.en_US
dc.coverage.spatialUnited Statesen_US
dc.date2014-10-29
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-21T19:30:17Z
dc.date.available2018-02-21T19:30:17Z
dc.date.issued2015-04
dc.identifierhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25565143
dc.identifier.citationEdwin Maas, Marja-Liisa Mailend, Frank H Guenther. 2015. "Feedforward and feedback control in apraxia of speech: effects of noise masking on vowel production.." J Speech Lang Hear Res, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp. 185 - 200.
dc.identifier.issn1558-9102
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2144/27140
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: This study was designed to test two hypotheses about apraxia of speech (AOS) derived from the Directions Into Velocities of Articulators (DIVA) model (Guenther et al., 2006): the feedforward system deficit hypothesis and the feedback system deficit hypothesis. METHOD: The authors used noise masking to minimize auditory feedback during speech. Six speakers with AOS and aphasia, 4 with aphasia without AOS, and 2 groups of speakers without impairment (younger and older adults) participated. Acoustic measures of vowel contrast, variability, and duration were analyzed. RESULTS: Younger, but not older, speakers without impairment showed significantly reduced vowel contrast with noise masking. Relative to older controls, the AOS group showed longer vowel durations overall (regardless of masking condition) and a greater reduction in vowel contrast under masking conditions. There were no significant differences in variability. Three of the 6 speakers with AOS demonstrated the group pattern. Speakers with aphasia without AOS did not differ from controls in contrast, duration, or variability. CONCLUSION: The greater reduction in vowel contrast with masking noise for the AOS group is consistent with the feedforward system deficit hypothesis but not with the feedback system deficit hypothesis; however, effects were small and not present in all individual speakers with AOS. Theoretical implications and alternative interpretations of these findings are discussed.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipR01 DC002852 - NIDCD NIH HHS; R01 DC007683 - NIDCD NIH HHSen_US
dc.format.extentp. 185 - 200en_US
dc.languageeng
dc.relation.ispartofJ Speech Lang Hear Res
dc.rightsCopyright © 2015 American Speech-Language-Hearing Associationen_US
dc.subjectScience & technologyen_US
dc.subjectSocial sciencesen_US
dc.subjectLife sciences & biomedicineen_US
dc.subjectAudiology & speech-language pathologyen_US
dc.subjectLinguisticsen_US
dc.subjectRehabilitationen_US
dc.subjectHearingen_US
dc.subjectAdulten_US
dc.subjectAge factorsen_US
dc.subjectAphasiaen_US
dc.subjectApraxiasen_US
dc.subjectCase-control studiesen_US
dc.subjectFeedback, psychologicalen_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectMiddle ageden_US
dc.subjectNoiseen_US
dc.subjectPerceptual maskingen_US
dc.subjectPhoneticsen_US
dc.subjectSpeechen_US
dc.subjectSpeech acousticsen_US
dc.subjectSpeech production measurementen_US
dc.subjectYoung adulten_US
dc.subjectClinical sciencesen_US
dc.subjectCognitive scienceen_US
dc.subjectLinguisticsen_US
dc.subjectSpeech-language pathology & audiologyen_US
dc.titleFeedforward and feedback control in apraxia of speech: effects of noise masking on vowel productionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-13-0300
pubs.elements-sourcepubmeden_US
pubs.notesEmbargo: Not knownen_US
pubs.organisational-groupBoston Universityen_US
pubs.organisational-groupBoston University, College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent Collegeen_US
pubs.organisational-groupBoston University, College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, Speech, Language & Hearing Sciencesen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record