Thales De Nardo , John A. Tetnowski , Geoffrey A. Coalson
{"title":"听众对口吃的认知和口吃矫正技巧","authors":"Thales De Nardo , John A. Tetnowski , Geoffrey A. Coalson","doi":"10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.105960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to analyse naïve listener perceptions of speech containing unmodified stuttering, use of the pull-out technique, and use of preparatory-sets.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Participants (<em>N</em> = 62) were randomly assigned to listen to one audio sample (unmodified stuttered speech, speech with pull-outs, or speech with preparatory-sets) and completed a survey assessing perceptions of the speaker’s speech and personality and the listener’s comfort level and willingness to social interact with the speaker.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Survey results revealed low perceptual ratings in all experimental conditions. Unmodified stuttered speech received significantly more positive ratings than the stuttering modification conditions in all measurements except for speech naturalness. Listeners reported being less willing to socially interact with those who use preparatory-sets than unmodified stuttered speech.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of stuttering modification techniques did not improve listeners’ perceptions or willingness to interact with persons who stutter. Clinicians and those who stutter should be aware that the use of speech techniques will not decrease negative social interactions or stereotypes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 105960"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Listener perceptions of stuttering and stuttering modification techniques\",\"authors\":\"Thales De Nardo , John A. Tetnowski , Geoffrey A. Coalson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.105960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to analyse naïve listener perceptions of speech containing unmodified stuttering, use of the pull-out technique, and use of preparatory-sets.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Participants (<em>N</em> = 62) were randomly assigned to listen to one audio sample (unmodified stuttered speech, speech with pull-outs, or speech with preparatory-sets) and completed a survey assessing perceptions of the speaker’s speech and personality and the listener’s comfort level and willingness to social interact with the speaker.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Survey results revealed low perceptual ratings in all experimental conditions. Unmodified stuttered speech received significantly more positive ratings than the stuttering modification conditions in all measurements except for speech naturalness. Listeners reported being less willing to socially interact with those who use preparatory-sets than unmodified stuttered speech.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of stuttering modification techniques did not improve listeners’ perceptions or willingness to interact with persons who stutter. Clinicians and those who stutter should be aware that the use of speech techniques will not decrease negative social interactions or stereotypes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Fluency Disorders\",\"volume\":\"75 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105960\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Fluency Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X23000037\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X23000037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Listener perceptions of stuttering and stuttering modification techniques
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to analyse naïve listener perceptions of speech containing unmodified stuttering, use of the pull-out technique, and use of preparatory-sets.
Method
Participants (N = 62) were randomly assigned to listen to one audio sample (unmodified stuttered speech, speech with pull-outs, or speech with preparatory-sets) and completed a survey assessing perceptions of the speaker’s speech and personality and the listener’s comfort level and willingness to social interact with the speaker.
Results
Survey results revealed low perceptual ratings in all experimental conditions. Unmodified stuttered speech received significantly more positive ratings than the stuttering modification conditions in all measurements except for speech naturalness. Listeners reported being less willing to socially interact with those who use preparatory-sets than unmodified stuttered speech.
Conclusion
The use of stuttering modification techniques did not improve listeners’ perceptions or willingness to interact with persons who stutter. Clinicians and those who stutter should be aware that the use of speech techniques will not decrease negative social interactions or stereotypes.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Fluency Disorders provides comprehensive coverage of clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects of stuttering, including the latest remediation techniques. As the official journal of the International Fluency Association, the journal features full-length research and clinical reports; methodological, theoretical and philosophical articles; reviews; short communications and much more – all readily accessible and tailored to the needs of the professional.