听众对口吃的认知和口吃矫正技巧

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Fluency Disorders Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.105960
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 ,&nbsp;John A. Tetnowski ,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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 ,&nbsp;John A. Tetnowski ,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的本研究的目的是分析天真的听众对包含未经修饰的口吃的语音的感知、拔出技术的使用,方法参与者(N=62)被随机分配听一个音频样本(未经修饰的结结巴巴的语音、带脱口的语音或带预备集的语音),并完成一项调查,评估对说话者的语音和个性的感知,以及听众与说话者进行社交互动的舒适度和意愿。结果调查结果显示,在所有实验条件下,感知评分均较低。在除语音自然度外的所有测量中,未修饰的口吃语音获得的积极评价都明显高于口吃修饰条件。听众报告说,与未经修饰的结结巴巴的演讲相比,他们更不愿意与那些使用预备演讲集的人进行社交互动。结论使用口吃矫正技术并没有改善听众与口吃者互动的感知或意愿。临床医生和口吃者应该意识到,使用言语技巧不会减少负面的社交互动或刻板印象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Fluency Disorders
Journal of Fluency Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing eficit?", [Journal of Fluency Disorders, 67 (2021) 105827]. Editorial Board A theory building critical realist evaluation of an integrated cognitive-behavioural fluency enhancing stuttering treatment for school-age children. Part 1: Development of a preliminary program theory from expert speech-language pathologist data. Public attitudes toward stuttering and cluttering in Chinese and Japanese speech-language pathology students Mitigating stuttering self-stigma: How do we start and where do we go? Using a Participative Concept Mapping Approach to develop a local framework of principles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1