lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · final version accepted for...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
FinalversionacceptedforpublicationinLanguageandSpeechJune6,2017.
Laylistenerclassificationandevaluationoftypicalandatypical
children’sspeech
MelissaA.Redford1,VsevolodKapatsinski1,JolynnCornell-Fabiano2
1DepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofOregon
2CésarE.ChávezElementarySchool,EugeneSchoolDistrict4J
Runninghead:Classificationandevaluationofchildspeech
Keywords:Autism,likeability,intelligibility,prosody,acoustics.
Acknowledgments.ThisresearchwasfundedbyAwardNumberR01HD061458(PI:
Redford)fromtheEuniceKennedyShriverNationalInstituteofChildHealth&Human
Development(NICHD),andmadepossible,inpart,bythesupportoftheEugeneSchool
District4Jandafellowshiptothe1stauthorfromtheEuropeanInstitutesforAdvanced
Study(EURIAS),co-fundedbytheEuropeanCommission(Marie-Sklodowska-CurieActions
COFUNDProgrammeFP7).Thecontentissolelytheresponsibilityoftheauthorsanddoes
notnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofNICHD,theEugeneSchoolDistrict4J,EURIASor
COFUND.WearegratefultoAubrianneCarson,WookKyungChoe,andPaulOlejarczukfor
significanthelpwithdatacollectionandprocessing.
![Page 2: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
1
ABSTRACT
Verbalchildrenwithautismspectrumdisorder(ASD)oftenalsohaveatypicalspeech.In
thecontextofthemanychallengesassociatedwithASD,dospeechsoundpattern
differencesreallymatter?Thecurrentstudyaddressedthisquestion.Structured
spontaneousspeechwaselicitedfrom34children:17withASD,whosecliniciansreported
unusualspeechprosody;and17typically-developing,age-matchedcontrols.Multiword
utteranceswereexcerptedfromeachchild’sspeechsampleandpresentedtoyoungadult
listeners,whohadnoclinicaltrainingorexperience.InExperiment1,listenersclassified
bandpassfilteredandunalteredexcerptsas“typical”or“disordered”.ChildrenwithASD
wereonlydistinguishedfromtypicalchildrenbasedonunalteredspeech,buttheanalyses
indicateduniquecontributionsfromspeechsoundpatterns.InExperiment2,listeners
providedlikeabilityratingsonthefilteredandunalteredexcerpts.Again,laylistenersonly
distinguishedchildrenwithASDfromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeersbasedonunaltered
speech,withtypicalchildrenratedasmorelikeablethanchildrenwithASD.InExperiment
3,listenersevaluatedtheunalteredspeechalongseveralperceptualdimensions.High
overlapbetweenthedimensionsofarticulation,clearness,andfluencywascapturedbyan
emergentdimension:intelligibility.Thisdimensionpredictedlisteners’likeabilityratings
nearlyaswellasitpredictedtheirjudgmentsofdisorder.Overall,theresultsshowthatlay
listenerscandistinguishatypicalfromtypicalchildrenoutsidethesocial-interactional
contextbasedsolelyonspeech,andthattheyattendtospeechintelligibilitytodothis.Poor
intelligibilityalsocontributestolisteners’negativesocialevaluationofchildren,andso
meritsassessmentandremediation.
![Page 3: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
2
INTRODUCTION
TempleGrandin,diagnosedwithautismasachild,characterizedherearlyspeechin
thefollowingway:"Myvoicewasflatwithlittleinflectionandnorhythm.Thatalone
stampedmeasdifferent(Grandin&Scariano,1986:21).”Especiallyinchildhood,any
differencethatdeviatesfrompeer-definednormscanjeopardizeachild’saccesstopeer
friendshipsandsocialsupport.Forexample,inthedomainofspeechandlanguage,Rice
andcolleagueshaveshownthatchildrenwithspecificlanguageimpairmentandthosewho
learnEnglishasasecondlanguagehavelessaccesstopositivesocialinteractionsinUS
schoolsthantypicallydeveloping,nativeEnglish-speakingchildren(Rice,Sell,&Hadley,
1991;Gertner,Rice,&Hadley,1994).Atypicalspeechpatternsmayfunctionlikelanguage
disorderorincompletesecondlanguageacquisitionbycreatingbarrierstosocial
interactionforchildrenwithASD.Butunlikelanguagedisorderorincompletesecond
languageacquisition,theproblemmayhavelesstodowithcommunicationperseand
everythingtodowiththeconveyanceofdifference;specifically,adifferencethatresultsin
anegativesocialevaluation.ThispossibilitywasnotedevenbyAsperger(1944,as
translatedbyFrith,1991:70),whoconcludedhisdescriptionofatypicalspeechinchildren
withASDbysayingthat“thelanguagefeelsunnatural,oftenlikeacaricature,which
provokesridiculeinthenaïvelistener.”Thegoalofthepresentresearchwastotestthe
hypothesizedlinkbetweenatypicalspeechpatternsandanegativesocialevaluationof
childrenwithASD.Asecondarygoalwastoidentifythepatternsthatlaylistenersattendto
whenclassifyingchildren’sspeechastypicalornotandwhenevaluatingchildren’s
likeabilityasafunctionoftheirspeech.
![Page 4: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
3
Background
Afairlysubstantialbodyofscientificworkconfirmsthatindividualswithautism
whospeakdoindeedproduceatypicalspeechsoundpatterns,andespeciallyatypical
speechprosody.Forexample,Shribergandcolleagues(Shriberg,Paul,McSweeny,Klin,
Cohen,&Volkmar,2001)usedtheversatileandcomprehensivebutunstandardized
Prosody-VoiceScreeningProfile(PVSP;Shriberg,Kwiatkowski,&Rasmussen,1990)in
theirstudyofspontaneousspeechin30individualswithASD:trainedlistenersevaluated
speechacrossavarietyofpredeterminedprosodicandvoicecategories,including
loudness,pitch,voicequality,resonancequality,phrasing,rate,andstress.Themost
consistentvoicedeficitwasinresonancequality:aninappropriatenasalqualitywasmore
oftenidentifiedinspeechproducedbyindividualswithASDthanbythecontrols.Themost
consistentprosodicdeficitwasstress;acategorythatincludedexcessive/equalstress,
prolongationandblockingtypedisfluencies,aswellasincorrectproductionoflexicalstress
patternsandaccentualpatternsatthelevelofthephrase(labeled“contrastivestress”).The
authorsreportthattheperceiveddifferencesbetweenindividualswithASDandcontrol
speakerswasduetoagreaternumberofperceiveddisfluenciesand“misplacedword
stress.”(p.1107).Insofarasanumberofotherperceptualstudiessimilarlyreportautism-
relateddeficitsintheproductionoflexicalstressandphrasalaccenting(e.g.,Baltaxe&
Guthrie,1987;McCaleb&Prizant,1985;Paul,Augustyn,Klin,&Volkmar,2005;Grossman,
Bemis,Plesa-Skwerer,&Tager-Flusberg,2010),itislikelythatdeficitsin“stress”
productionisadefiningfeatureofatypicalprosodyinASD.
Incontrasttoperceptualstudies,acousticstudiesonautisticspeechhavefocusedon
globalpatternsrelevanttocharacterizingtheprosodicdifferencesinindividualswithASD.
Forexample,Diehletal.(2009)extractedaverageF0(theacousticcorrelateofpitch)and
![Page 5: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
4
itsstandarddeviation(=pitchvariability)overlargetemporalwindows(250+
milliseconds)innarrativespeechproducedbyatotalof38childrenandadolescentswith
ASDand38typicalcontrols.Theyfoundthatpitchvariabilitywasgenerallyhigherin
speechproducedbychildrenwithASDthanintypicallydevelopingchildren.Otherstudies
reportsimilarresults(Sharda,Subhardra,Sahay,…&Singh,2010;Bonneh,Levanon,Dean-
Pardon,Lossos,&Adini2011;Depape,Chen,Hall,&Trainor,2012;Nadig&Shaw,2012),
whichcouldbeconsistentwiththeabove-mentionedfindingofimpairedphrasalaccenting
inautisticspeechifpitchvariabilitycapturessomethingaboutaccentualpatterning.
Inadditiontodeficitsinlexicalstressproductionandphrasalaccenting,thereis
someevidencethatindividualswithASDproducespeechatslowerratesthantypical
controls(forareviewseeShriberg,Paul,Black,&vanSanten,2011).Forexample,Diehl
andPaul(2011)usedthesameglobalF0measuresasDiehletal.(2009)onutterances
obtainedfrom24childrenwithASDand22typicallydevelopingchildrenindifferent
subtestsoftheformallystructuredbutunstandardizedProfilingElementsofProsodyin
Speech-Communicationtest(Peppé&McCann,2003),butfoundnodifferencebetweenthe
groups.TheyalsotookmeasuresofF0rangeaswellasutterance-levelmeasuresof
acousticdurationandintensity.Onlydurationdifferencesweresignificant:childrenwith
ASDproducedlongerutterancesonaveragethanthetypicalcontrols.
Studiesthatuseperceptualevaluationormeasureglobalacousticstoidentify
prosodicdeficits/differencesassumeanexpandeddefinitionofprosodyrelativetothat
whichisassumedincarefullinguisticphoneticstudies.Butwhereasthelinguist’sinterest
isintherealizationofabstractmetricalandintonationalstructuresandthealignment
betweenthem,theclinician’sinterestisinidentifyingthosepatternsthatcouldadversely
affectanindividual’sabilitytocommunicatewith—inordertobeacceptedby—peers.The
![Page 6: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
5
searchforprosodicdeficitsisthusexpandedtoincludeanysuprasegmentalpatternin
autisticspeechthatmightreliablysignaldifferenceordisorder.
Yet,evenwithitswidepurview,existingresearchonthedifferencesbetween
autisticandneurotypicalspeechreturnsfewconsistentfindings.Considerforexamplethe
contradictoryresultsonthestatusofatypicalpitchvariabilityinindividualswithASD:
Diehlandcolleagues(2009)findsignificantdifferencesbetweenchildrenwithandwithout
ASDinonetask,butDiehlandPaul(2011)findnosuchdifferencesinanothertask.Such
inconsistentresultsmaybeduetotheabsenceofdeficitsinasignificantproportionof
high-functioningindividualswithASD.Althoughsystematicdataonthedistributionof
atypicalprosodyinautismdonotyetexist,ithasbeensuggestedthatprosodicdeficitsmay
onlybeevidentinthespeechofhalfofallindividualswithASD(e.g.,Paul,Shribergetal.,
2005).
Despitecontradictoryfindingsandthepossibilitythatprosodicdisorderoccursin
onlyhalfofallhigh-functioningindividualswithASD,thetopicofprosodic
difference/deficitsinautismhasreceivedincreasingattentioninrecentyears.Whereas
McCannandPeppé(2003)foundthatbetween1980and2002only16studiesonprosody
inautism,ascholar.google.frsearchinearly2017on“prosodyautismprosodicASD”
returned1,010results.Thetop100results,whichincludedofarticles,conference
proceedingsandbookchapters,indicatedatleast57newstudies(i.e.,thosepublishedin
peer-reviewedjournals)thatwerefocusedonsomeaspectofprosodyorprosodic
processinginthespeechofindividualswithASD.Thiskindofattentionissurprisinggiven
thatautismis,afterall,characterizedprimarilybydeficitsinsocialcommunicationand
interactionaswellasbyrestrictedandrepetitivepatternsofbehaviorthataredisabling
(AmericanPsychiatricAssociation,2013).ThediagnosticcriteriasetforthintheDiagnostic
![Page 7: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
6
andStatisticalManualofMentalDisorders(DSM-5)donotevenmentionatypicalspeech
soundpatterns,letaloneprosody.Theydohoweverreferencebehaviorssuchas“failureto
initiateorrespondtosocialinteractions”and“abnormalitiesineyecontactandbody
language...toatotallackoffacialexpressions”aswellasstereotypedorrepetitivemotor
movements…orspeech”(e.g.,echolaliaoridiosyncraticphrases).Giventhedisabling
natureofthecriterialbehaviorsinautism,whicharesocialorperseverativeinnature
ratherthanprosodic,isthereagoodreasontofocusevermoreresearchontheunusual
speechpatternsofindividualswithASD?Thisquestionmotivatedthecurrentstudy.
TheCurrentStudy
Thepracticedclinicianapparentlyhasnotroubleidentifyingindividualswith
autismbasedonatypicalspeechsoundpatternswhenthesearepresent(Klin,Sparrow,
Marans,Carter,&Volkmar,2000).Cliniciansintrainingcanalsoreliablydistinguish
speakerswithandwithoutautismbasedonshortconversationalspeechsamplesthatare
measurablydifferentwithrespecttopitchvariability(Nadig&Shaw,2012).Theseabilities
areperhapsnotsurprisinggiventhat,aslanguagespeakers,weareattunedtosound
patternsinspeechthatindexsocialinformation.Thissensitivityallowslistenerstoadeptly
categorizespeechbyethnolect(Lass,Almerino,Jordan,&Walsh,1980;Purnell,Idsardi,&
Baugh,1999),dialect(Clopper&Pisoni,2004;Clopper&Bradlow,2009),genderidentity
(Lassetal.,1980;Munson,2007),andsexualorientation(Munson,McDonald,DeBoe,&
White,2005;Munson,2007).Moreover,listenersdonotthemselvesneedtobeexpertin
thesocialcategoriesofinteresttoeffectivelyclassifyspeechbasedonsoundpattern
differences(Purnelletal.,1999;Clopper&Bradlow,2009).Forexample,Clopperand
Bradlow(2009)usedafreeclassificationtasktoshowthatnon-nativespeakerswereable
toclusterAmericanEnglishspeechsamplesbydialect,albeitlessaccuratelythannative
![Page 8: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
7
speakersofAmericanEnglish.Otherstudiesstronglysuggestthattheperceptionofsocial
informationinspeechhassocialconsequences(vanBezooijen,1995;Purnelletal.,1999).
Forexample,Purnellandcolleaguesfoundthatlandlordsdiscriminatedagainsttenants
basedsolelyonspeechpatternsthatindexedanAfricanAmericanorChicanoidentity.
Ourautomaticidentificationofsocialinformationinspeechcoupledwith
impressionisticdescriptionsofatypicalspeechsoundpatternsinautismastooloud,shrill,
sing-songy,mechanicalandsoon(see,e.g.,Asperger,1944inFrith,1991;Klinetal.,2000)
suggestthatautisticspeechmaybenoticeabletoandsociallyevaluatedbylistenerswho
havenoknownpriorexperiencewithautism.Butthequestionremainsastohowimpactful
thesespeechdifferencesreallyare.Morespecifically,isitthespeechpersethatidentifiesa
personwithautismas“other”orisitperhapsthesuiteofunusualcommunicativeand
repetitivebehaviorstypicalofautismthatengendertheperceptionofotherness?Also,if
othernesscanbediscernedbasedsolelyonspeechpatterns,wouldsuchanidentification
resultinaninherentlynegativesocialevaluation?Tobegintoanswerthesequestions,the
currentstudytestedtheeasewithwhichlaylistenerscandistinguishchildrenwithASD
fromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeersbasedsolelyonshortsnippetsoftheirprosodically
impairedspeech.Wealsoinvestigatedhowlistenersevaluatedthisspeechabsentasocial
orlinguisticcontext.
Acousticstudiesthatfindgroupdifferencesbetweenautisticandneurotypical
speechstronglysuggestthatspeech-specificdifferencesarethereandshouldbe
perceptibleeventolaylisteners.Yet,eventhissuggestionhasyettoberigorouslytested.
TheperceptualratingstudyconductedbyNadigandShaw(2012)providessomeevidence
infavoroftheperceptualsaliencyofdifference,buttheirlistenerswerespeech-language
pathologistsintrainingwhowerealsospecificallytaughttoattendtopitchchangesinthe
![Page 9: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
8
speechsamplesfromchildrenwithandwithoutASD.Inaddition,thesamplesthatNadig
andShaw’slistenersratedwereexcerptedfromconversationswithnocontrolover
languagedifferences(wordchoice,appropriatenessofresponse,etc.)thatcouldinfluence
judgmentsoftypicality.Thecurrentstudyprovidesamorerigoroustestofthehypothesis
thattheatypicalspeechproducedbychildrenwithASDandunusualprosodyis
perceptuallydistinctfromtypicalchildren’sspeech(Experiment1).Aftershowingthatitis,
wegoontoinvestigatewhetherperceiveddifferenceresultsinanegativesocialevaluation
ofthespeaker(Experiment2).Wefollowupbyidentifyingtheperceptualdimensionsthat
listenersusebothtodistinguishatypicalfromtypicalspeechandtosociallyevaluatea
speaker(Experiment3).Themethodsweusecontrolasbestaspossibleforinfluencesof
social-interactionalcontextonlisteners’classificationandevaluationofspeech:weelicited
children’sspontaneousspeechinanarrativetask,ratherthaninaconversationalone,and
furtherdecontextualizedeventhisspeechbyextractingonlyafew,fluentlyproduced
utterancesfromeachnarrative.Thestimuliandjudgmenttaskswerealsodesignedtotest
thefundamentalsaliencyofprosodicdifferences,andtocontrolforpossibleeffectsof
languageonlisteners’evaluationofspeechpatterns.Finally,weusedlaylisteners,whohad
noknownaprioriexperiencewithASDandrelativelylittleexperienceonaveragewith
children,tomaximizethepossibilitythatlistenerjudgmentswerereflectiveofbroader
societalnormsratherthandependentonpersonalhistoriesandexperiences.Intheseways,
wesoughttoanswerourmotivatingquestionofwhethertheatypicalspeechsound
patternsoftenassociatedwithASDarethemselvesimportanttoaddressdirectlygiventhe
manyothersocially-disablingbehaviorsmorecentraltoautism.
![Page 10: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
9
EXPERIMENT1
ThegoalofExperiment1wastotestlaylisteners’abilitytodistinguishchildren
withASDfromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeersbasedsolelyontheiratypicalspeech.The
hypothesisthatlistenerswouldbeabletodothisfollowsfromourautomaticidentification
ofsocialinformationinspeechandfromacousticstudiesthathavemeasuredandfound
differencesinspeechproducedbymanychildrenandadultswithASDcomparedtothose
withoutASD,particularlyintheprosodicdomain.Sincethesestudiesalsoshowthat
prosodicdeficitsdonotappearinallindividualswithASD,weobtainedspeechsamples
onlyfromchildrenwithASDwhowerealreadydeemedbytheirspeech–language
pathologisttohaveunusualspeechprosody.
Methods
Participants
Sixteencollege-agedadultsprovidedlayjudgmentsofdisorder.Theseadultswere
recruitedfromintroductorypsychologyandlinguisticsclasses,andreceivedcoursecredit
fortheirparticipation.AllreportednormalhearingandEnglishastheirnativelanguage.
Thelistenersevaluatedspeechobtainedfrom34children,whoalsohadnormalhearing
andEnglishastheirnativelanguage.Seventeenofthechildren(14boys)hadspecial
education(SPED)eligibilitiesforreceivingspeechandlanguageservicesintheschools
underautismspectrumdisorder(ASD).Theirmeanagewas9;0years(SD=18months).
Theother17children(13boys)weretypicallydeveloping.Theirmeanagewas8;9years
(SD=15months).
ChildrenwithASDwererecruitedforthestudythroughalocalnetworkofschool
speech–languagepathologists(SLPs)in2011.TheSLPswereaskedtoreferchildrenfrom
theircaseloadwhohad(1)aSPEDeligibilityunderASD,(2)normalcognition,and(3)
![Page 11: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
10
unusualprosody.InthestateofOregon,adeterminationofautismforSPEDeligibilityis
madebytheschooldistrictandinvolvesateamofeducationprofessionalsincludinga
schoolSLPandclinicalpsychologist.Thisteammakestheirdeterminationbasedon
observationofthechildinandoutoftheclassroom,andusesassessmentinstrumentsto
evaluatetargetbehaviors,cognition,speechandlanguage(seeOregonAdministrative
RulesforSpecialEducationathttp://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/spedoars.pdf).The
AutismDiagnosticObservationSchedule(ADOS;Lord,Rutter,Pamela,Dilavore,&Risi,
2008)isnotused,norisamedicaldiagnosisofautismrequiredoracceptedasasubstitute
forafullevaluationbythedistrictteam.Regardingunusualprosody,wereliedonthe
schoolSLP’sinterpretationofwhatthismightmeaninkeepingwithboththegoalsofthe
studyandtheverybroaddefinitionofwhatconstitutesprosodyinresearchonautistic
speech.
Wecollecteddatafrom18childrenwhowerethuslyreferred,butonechild’sspeech
wasaccidentallynotrecorded.Symptomseverityfortheremaining17childrenwas
measuredbyaskingthereferringSLPtocompletetheChildhoodAutismRatingScale
(CARS2;Schopler,VanBourgodien,Wellman,&Love,2010).Parentalreportwasusedto
establishwhetherornotthechildhadexperiencedlanguagedelay.Receptivevocabulary
scoreswereobtainedusingthePeabodyPictureVocabularyTest(PPVT-4;Dunn&Dunn,
2007).Table1reportsthesex,age,ASDsymptomseverity,languagedelay,and
standardizedreceptivevocabularyscoresforeachchild.
InsertTable1abouthere.
Typicallydevelopingchildrenwerenotspecificallyrecruitedforthecurrentstudy.
Instead,thesechildrenrepresentedasubsetof100childrenwhohadparticipatedina
![Page 12: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
11
longitudinalstudyonthetypicalacquisitionofprosodyinschool-agedchildren,whichwas
on-goingatthetimeofthecurrentstudy.Speechsampleswereselectedfrom17ofthe
childrenwhobestmatchedtheASDgroupinageandsexatthetimeofthepresentstudy.
Typicaldevelopmentwasassessedbasedonparentreportregardingthechild’shearing,
speech,language,andmedicalhistory.Themeanageinthisgroupwasnotsignificantly
differentfromthemeanageinthegroupofchildrenwithASD.Table2reportsthesex,age,
andstandardizedreceptivevocabularyscoresofthetypicallydevelopingchildren.
InsertTable2abouthere.
ElicitationProcedure
Structuredspontaneousspeechsampleswereobtainedusingastorytellingtask.An
experimenterpresentedchildrenwith4picturebooksthatdepicteddifferentadventures
ofafrogand/oraboyandadog(i.e.,thefrogstorybooksbyMercerMayer).Childrenwere
askedtochoosethepicturebookthats/hewouldmostliketonarrate.Typicallydeveloping
childrenfamiliarizedthemselveswiththeirbookofchoiceunderexperimenter
supervision,thentoldtheirstorytoaparentorcaregivertwotimes.Storyrepetitionwas
usedtocontrolfortheeffectsoflanguageplanningonthespeechproduced(seeRedford,
2013).Asourinterestisinspeechandnotincognitiveinfluencesonlanguageproduction,
thesamplesusedinthepresentstudywereextractedfromthechildren’ssecond
storytelling.
PilotworkindicatedthatchildrenwithASDresistedtellingthesamestorytwicetoa
parentorcaregiver.Theelicitationprotocolwasthereforeadaptedinthefollowingway.
Childrenchoseabooktonarrate,thendevelopedastoryinresponsetoquestionsand
promptsfromtheexperimenterwhilelookingthroughtheirbookofchoice.Thechild’s
![Page 13: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
12
caregiverwastheninvitedbackintotheroom(ortheconversationiftheyhadnotleft),and
thechildwasinstructedto“telltheirstory”tothecaregiver.Thescaffoldingprocedure
servedthesamefunctionasafirststorytellinginourstudyontypicallydeveloping
children’sspeechacquisition:itallowedchildrentoplantheirstoryandpracticethe
languagetheywouldusetotellthestory.
Allchildren’sstoriesweredigitallyrecordedontoaMarantzPMD660(witha
samplingrateof44,100Hz)usingaShureULXS4standardwirelessreceiverandalavaliere
microphone,whichwasattachedtoabaseballhatorheadbandthatthespeakerwore.
ChildrenwithASDwouldsometimesrefusetowearthehatorheadband,inwhichcasethe
microphonewasplacedeitheronthechild’sclothingoronthetablebetweenthe
experimenterandchild.
SpeechSamples
Fourmultiwordutteranceswereextractedfromthemiddleofeachchild’sstoryto
avoidthestereotypedlanguageandprosodyassociatedwithstorybeginningsandendings.
Utteranceswereselectedonthebasisofprosodiccompletenessandlength:utterancesthat
wereroughly2secondslongwereselectedoverthosethatwereshorterormuchlonger.
Thegoalwastoselectphrasesthatwouldbestrepresentphrase-levelrhythmand
intonation(hencetherelativelylongminimumlength)whilecontrollingforsignificant
juncturesduetopausesandotherdisfluencies(hencetherelativelyshortmaximum
length).SamplesfromchildrenwithASDrangedinlengthfrom1.12to3.37seconds(M=
2.21)andfrom4to14syllables(M=8.08).Samplesfromtypicallydevelopingchildren
rangedinlengthfrom1.45to3.06seconds(M=2.17)andfrom5to14syllables(M=9.15).
Onceutteranceswereextracted,filteringwasusedtocreatestimuliforapure
prosodycondition.Theunalteredutteranceswereusedtocreatestimuliforthe
![Page 14: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
13
correspondingfullspeechcondition.Thegoalofthemanipulationwastotesttheextentof
prosodicdifferenceinthespeechofASDversustypicallydevelopingchildren,keepingin
mindthatfilteringalwayssubstantiallydegradesthespeechsignal.
Twodifferentbandpassfilterswereused:onepreservedlowerfrequencies(250to
750Hz)andtheotherhigherfrequencies(500to1000Hz).Thebandpassfilterthat
preservedlowerfrequencieswasusedtocapturerhythmicinformationassociatedwiththe
alternationofsonorantandnonsonorantspeechintervals.Thebandpassfilterthat
preservedhigherfrequencieseliminatedtheremaininglowfrequencyenergyassociated
withthosesonorantconsonantsproducedwithsignificantoralocclusioninonsetposition.
Thegoalofthisfilterwasthereforetopreserveinformationaboutthespacingofvowel
onsets,whichhavebeenreferredtoastheperceptualcentersofrhythmicbeatsinspeech
(Port,2003).Notethatpitch(i.e.,F0)informationwaspreservedunderbothmanipulations
becauselistenerscalculatepitchfromthefrequencyspacingbetweenpreservedharmonics
(Moore,1994).Intheend,filtertypehadnosignificanteffectonlistenerjudgmentsandso
werecombinedintheanalysesreportedbelow,whichthereforeonlyrefertofilteredand
unalteredspeechsamples.
Filteredandunalteredutteranceswereamplitudenormalizedto75dBusingthe
scalefunctioninPraat(Boersma&Weenik,2009).Individualutterancesfromeachspeaker
werethenconcatenatedinrandomordertocreatestimulithatwereblockedbyspeaker.
Utteranceswereseparatedby300millisecondsofsilenceineachblock.Blockingwas
deemednecessarybecausepilotworkindicatedthatnaïvelistenersneedtohearmorethan
2secondsofspeechfromasingleindividualtomakeareliablejudgment.Theblocks
rangedindurationfrom7.27to12.51seconds(M=9.80)forchildrenwithASDandfrom
8.18to10.86seconds(M=9.51)fortypicallydevelopingchildren.
![Page 15: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
14
ClassificationTask
Listenerswereaskedtomakejudgmentsof“typical”and“disordered”basedonthe
speechsamples.Listenersalsoindicatedtheirconfidenceineachjudgmentona5-point
ratingscale.Allresponseoptionsweredisplayedaslabeledbuttonsonacomputer
monitor.Thetwoalternativejudgments,“typical”and“disordered”,wereplacedinarow
abovetheconfidenceratingscale,whichalsoappearedasarow.Listenerswouldheara
stimulusblock,makeajudgment,ratetheirjudgment,thenpress“OK”tocontinueinthe
task.Stimulusblockswerepresentedinrandomorder.Listenersheardonelow-frequency
bandpassfilteredstimulusblockandonehigh-frequencybandpassfilteredstimulusblock
perspeaker,andsomadeatotalof68typicalityjudgments(34speakersx2repetitions)in
thefilteredspeechcondition.Listenersheardthesameunalteredstimulusblocktwice,and
soalsomadeatotalof68typicalityjudgmentsinthefullspeechcondition.
Listenerinstructionsincludedinformationaboutthespeakers,abouthowthe
speechstimuliwerecreated,andtheeffectofbandpassfilteringonspeech.Specifically,
listenersweretoldthatthespeechsampleshadbeenelicitedfromchildrenbetweenthe
agesof5and11yearsold,andthathalfofthechildrenwerereceivingspeech-language
servicesintheschool.Listenerswereassuredtheresearchobjectivewastohelptarget
speech-languagedeficitsinchildrenwithdisability,andsotheyshouldnotfeelinhibitedin
assigningajudgmentof“disordered”toanyspeechsampletheythoughtwasproducedbya
childwithdisability.Listenerswerealsotoldthattheutterancesthatmadeupeachsample
weretakenfromalargerstorytellingtask,andthatthestorycontextwasnotpreserved.
Finally,listenersweretoldthatsomeofthespeechtheywouldhearwasfilteredtoremove
asmuchlanguageinformationaspossible.Theywereinstructedtomakejudgmentsbased
onwhatremainedperceptibleinthefilteredspeech;namely,rhythmandintonation.The
![Page 16: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
15
experimenteralsomadesurethatlistenersunderstoodwhatspeechrhythmandintonation
were.Theseinstructionsweregiventoprovidelistenerswitheveryopportunityto
distinguishchildrenwithASDfromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeerswhenprosodyalone
waspreservedinthefilteredsignal.
Finally,inordertogaininsightintothebasisforjudgmentsof“typical”versus
“disordered,”weaskedlistenerstoprovidewrittenfeedbackregardingtheirperceptual
criteria.Specifically,listenerswereaskedto:“Pleasedescribethecharacteristicsinthe
speechsamplesthatledyoutodistinguishbetween“typical”and“disordered”speech
(please,especially,notewhatyouthinkmadethespeechsounddisordered).”Listeners
respondedtothisrequesttwice:firstaftercompletingjudgmentsinthefilteredspeech
condition,andthenagainaftercompletingjudgmentsintheunalteredspeechcondition.
ControlTasks
Twoadditionaltaskswereincludedintheexperiment;bothwereusedtocontrolfor
theeffectsoflanguage(e.g.,wordchoice,syntacticstructure,samplecoherence)on
“typical”and“disordered”judgments.Thecontroltaskforthefilteredspeechcondition
investigatedtheeffectivenessofthefilteratremovinglanguageinformation:listeners
indicatedroughlyhowmanywordstheythoughttheyunderstoodinthefilteredspeech
samplesona5pointscale:none,some,half,most,orall.These5responseoptionswere
presentedinarowofboxesonthemonitor.Confidenceratingswereagaincollectedon
eachjudgmentthatthelistenermade.Thecontrolfortheunalteredspeechcondition
directlyinvestigatedeffectsofwordchoice,syntacticstructure,andotherlanguage
featuresontypicalityjudgments.Thistaskrequiredlistenerstomake“typical”or
“disordered”judgmentsbasedonwrittenversionsoftheutterancesratherthanonaurally
presentedversions.Thewrittenversionsofaspeaker’sutterancesweredisplayedfor10
![Page 17: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
16
secondstoapproximatethedurationoftheaudiosamples.Listenersworeheadphones
whenmakingtext-basedjudgmentsjustasinallotherconditions,theythenclickedon
“typical”or“disordered”asintheotherclassificationtasks,andalsoindicatedtheirdegree
ofconfidenceintheirjudgment.
Theexperimentalandcontroltaskswerealwayscompletedinthefollowingorder:
filteredspeech,comprehension,text(i.e.,writtenstimuli),unalteredspeech.Thefixed
orderhadtodowiththefactthatfilteringonlyeffectivelyeliminatesaccesstolanguage
contentiflistenershavenoaprioriexpectationsaboutthiscontent.
Analyses
Thebinaryresponseswerecoded“0”for“typical”and“1”for“disordered”and
summedacrosslistenerstoobtainasinglescoreforeachsampleineachofthetaskswhere
thisresponsewaselicited.Judgmentscoresintheexperimentaltaskswerethenstrippedof
languageinfluenceinthefollowingway.Standardizedcomprehensionratingscoresfor
eachsamplewereusedtopredictthesummed“disordered”scoresinthefilteredspeech
condition(i.e.,acrossfiltertype)usinglinearregression.Similarly,summed“disordered”
scoresfromthetext-onlyjudgmenttaskwereusedtopredictthesummed“disordered”
scoresintheunalteredspeechcondition.Theresidualscoresfromtheseanalyseswere
saved,andthetwoscoresperspeakeraveragedtoobtainthedependentvariableforthe
principleanalysis,whichinvestigatedlisteners’abilitytodistinguishspeechproducedby
childrenwithASDfromspeechproducedbychildrenwithtypicaldevelopment.Listeners’
confidenceintheirtypicalityjudgmentswerealsoanalyzedasafunctionofspeakergroup.
Thesewerestandardizedwithinlistenerusingaz-transform,thenaveragedacross
listenersandwithinspeakertoobtainthemeanlistenerconfidenceratingperspeaker.
![Page 18: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
17
Theprincipleanalysesusedamixed-designANOVAtoassessthebetween-subjects
effectofspeakergroup(ASDversustypical)andwithin-subjectseffectofspeechcondition
(filteredversusunaltered)onthedependentvariables:residualized“disordered”
judgmentsandstandardizedconfidenceratings.AShapiro-Wilktestindicatedthatvalues
associatedwiththesedependentvariableswerenormallydistributed.Asignificanteffectof
groupon“disordered”judgmentswouldindicatethatlistenerscandistinguishchildren
withASDfromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeersbasedonspeechpatternsalone.An
interactionbetweengroupandspeechconditionwouldindicatetheinfluenceofnon-
prosodicfactorson“disordered”judgments.Speaker’sage-in-monthsandstandardized
PPVTscoreswereincludedascovariatesintheanalysestocontrolfortheireffectsonthe
dependentvariables.
Results
ListenerResponsesbyJudgmentTaskandSpeakerGroup
Theuntransformedandunstandardizedresponsesacrossthedifferenttaskswere
notthefocusofanalysis,butaresummarizedinTable3togivethereaderafullersenseof
thedata.Notethatcumulative“disordered”scoreswerehigheronaverageforchildren
withASDcomparedtotheirtypicallydevelopingpeersacrossalltasks.Notealsothatthe
meandifferencebetweenthetwogroupsofchildrenwasespeciallylargeintheunaltered
speechtask.
InsertTable3abouthere.
EffectofSpeakerGrouponResidualizedJudgmentsofDisorder
Recallthattoinvestigatetheinfluenceofspeechpatternsonjudgmentsabsentthe
influenceoflanguageweregressedthescoresobtainedfromthecontroltasks
![Page 19: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
18
(comprehensionandtext-basedjudgments)againstthescoresobtainedfromthe
experimentaltasks(filteredspeechandunalteredspeechjudgments).Theanalysisonthe
residualsindicatedthatlistenersweremorelikelytojudgespeechproducedbychildren
withASDas“disordered”thanspeechproducedbychildrenwithtypicaldevelopment,F(1,
30)=4.56,p=.041,ηp2=.132.Thiseffectofgroupinteractedwithcondition,F(1,30)=
4.52,p=.042,ηp2=.131,inthatlistenerswerebetterabletodistinguishbetweenASDand
typicallydevelopingchildrenintheunalteredconditionthaninthefilteredcondition(see
Figure1).Thesimpleeffectofconditionwasnotsignificant.
InsertFigure1abouthere.
Giventhesignificantinteractionbetweenconditionandgroup,andtheseemingly
weakeffectofgroupon“disordered”judgmentsinthefilteredspeechcondition(Figure1),
followupanalyseswereconductedtodeterminewhetherlistenerswereinfactableto
distinguishchildrenwithASDfromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeersinthefilteredspeech
condition.Thedataweresplitbyconditionandtheeffectofgrouponresidualized
“disordered”judgmentswastestedagain.Theresultswerethatlistenersdistinguished
betweengroupsofchildrenbasedonspeechpatternsintheunalteredspeechcondition,
F(1,30)=5.99,p=.020,ηp2=.166,butnotinthefilteredspeechcondition,F(1,30)=0.70,
p>.1.Notethattheeffectofgroupon“disordered”judgmentsintheunalteredspeech
conditionissignificantevenwhenalphaiscorrectedformultiplecomparisons(i.e.,the
Bonferronicorrectedalphais.025).
WrittenFeedbackfromListenersontheirJudgments
Again,theeffectsoflanguagewerecontrolledintheunalteredspeechconditionby
partiallingoutvarianceinjudgmentsduetowordchoice,syntacticstructure,andso.Thus,
![Page 20: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
19
theresultsshowninFigure1indicatethatlistenersdifferentiatedchildrenwithASDand
prosodicdisorderfromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeersbasedonspeechsoundpatterns
alone.Yet,therewasnoeffectofgroupontheresidualized“disordered”judgmentsinthe
filteredspeechcondition.Thissuggestseitherthatprosodicdifferencesbetweenthetwo
groupsofchildrenweresubtleatbestandlistenersonlygainedsensitivitytothose
differencesastheexperimentprogressedorthatlistenersattendedtosomethingother
thanprosodywhenmakingjudgmentsofdisorder.Listenerfeedbacksuggestedboth
explanationscouldbetrue.Specifically,listenersreportedattendingtoarticulation,speech
clarity,fluency(=flow,rate,rhythm),andaccenting(=wordemphasis,intonation)when
makingjudgments.Fluencyandaccentingareclearlyprosodicinnature;articulationand
speechclarityreferencesegmentalcharacteristics.Table4summarizesthefeedbackwe
obtainedfromeachofthe16listenerswhoprovidedjudgmentsonthefilteredand
unalteredspeechsamples.
InsertTable4abouthere.
Listeners’ConfidenceintheirJudgments
Theanalysisonlisteners’standardizedconfidenceratingssupportthesuggestion
thatthespeechsamplesobtainedfromchildrenwithASDweresubtlydifferentfromthose
obtainedfromtypicallydevelopingchildren.Theymayalsohavebeenmorevariable.
Specifically,therewasasignificanteffectofgrouponlisteners’standardizedratings,F(1,
30)=10.75,p=.003,ηp2=.264,asshowninFigure2.Listenerswerelessconfidentintheir
judgmentsofspeechproducedbychildrenwithASDthanintheirjudgmentsofspeech
producedbychildrenwhoweretypicallydeveloping.Therewasnoeffectofconditionor
anyinteractionbetweenconditionandgroup.
![Page 21: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
20
InsertFigure2abouthere.
Discussion
TheresultsfromExperiment1indicatethatlistenerscorrectlyidentifyspeech
producedbychildrenwithASDas“disordered”moreoftenthanspeechproducedby
typicallydevelopingchildren.Thesoundpatterndifferencesaresufficientlysalientthat
listenerscandistinguishthegroupsoutsidethesocial-interactionalcontextandbasedon
veryshortspeechsamples.Yet,theabsenceofagroupeffectonjudgmentsinthefiltered
speechconditionsuggeststhatthesoundpatterndifferencesaresubtleenoughtobe
obscuredindegradedspeech.Thissuggestionisfurthersupportedbylisteners’weaker
confidenceintheirratingsofatypicalchildren’sspeechcomparedtotypicalchildren’s
speech.Listeners’weakerconfidenceintheirratingsofatypicalspeechmayalsoindicate
thatthesamplesprovidedbychildrenwithASDweremorevariablethantheonesobtained
fromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeers.
EXPERIMENT2
ThegoalofExperiment2wastotestwhetherlisteners’socialevaluationofspeakers
basedonspeechsoundpatternsalsodifferentiateschildrenwithASDfromtheirtypically
developingpeers.Thisgoalisinserviceofourquestionaboutwhetheratypicalspeech
soundpatternsmatter,wherethenotionofwhatmattersisunderstoodasaquestionabout
theeffectsofdifferenceonlisteners’attitudetowardsthespeaker.Therelationship
betweenlaylisteners’judgmentsofdisorder(Experiment1)andtheirlikeabilityratings
wasalsodirectlyexplored.
![Page 22: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
21
Methods
Participants
Twelvenewcollege-agedadultsprovidedlikeabilityratingsonthespeechsamples
fromExperiment1.Theseadultswererecruitedfromintroductorypsychologyand
linguisticsclasses,andreceivedcoursecreditfortheirparticipation.Allreportednormal
hearingandEnglishastheirnativelanguage.
RatingTask
ListenersratedboththefilteredandtheunalteredspeechsamplesfromExperiment
1forlikeabilityona7-pointLikertscale.Thelowvalueonthescalewasanchoredwitha
positivesocialstatement(“1=Awesome!Lovethiskid.”)andthehighvaluewithanegative
socialstatement(“7=Nah.Wouldn’tlikethiskid.”).Listenerssatinfrontofacomputer
monitorwiththeanchorsdisplayedabovetheratingscale,whichwasrepresentedasa
numberedsequenceof7buttons.Theylistenedtoaspeechsampleoverheadphones,rated
italongthelikeabilityscale,clicked“OK”andadvancedtoanewscreenandanewsample.
AsinExperiment1,listenerscompletedthefilteredspeechconditionbeforetheunaltered
speechcondition.Speechsampleswereplayedindifferentrandomorders.Listenerswere
toldonlythatthechildrenwerebetween5and11yearsold.UnlikeinExperiment1,they
werenottoldthathalfofthechildrenwerereceivingspeechandlanguagetherapyinthe
schools.
Analyses
Likeabilityratingswerestandardizedwithinlisteneracrossconditionsby
convertingtheratingscoresintoz-scores.Ratingswerethenaveragedacrosslistenersand
withinspeakers.Amixed-designANOVAwasusedtoassessthebetween-subjectseffectof
speakergroup(ASDversustypicaldevelopment)andwithin-subjectseffectofspeech
![Page 23: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
22
condition(filteredversusunaltered)onlikeabilityratings.Asignificanteffectofgroupon
likeabilityratingswouldindicatethatlistenersevaluatechildrenwithASDdifferentlyfrom
theirtypicallydevelopingpeersbasedonspeechpatternsalone.Aninteractionbetween
groupandspeechconditionwouldindicatetheinfluenceofnon-prosodicfactorson
listeners’ratings.Speaker’sage-in-monthsandstandardizedPPVTscoreswereincludedas
covariatesintheanalysestocontrolfortheireffectsonthedependentvariable.
Asecondanalysisusedlinearregressiontoinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenthe
residualized“disordered”judgmentsfromExperiment1andthelikeabilityratings
obtainedfromadifferentgroupoflistenersinExperiment2.Likeabilityratingswerethe
dependentvariable,andjudgmentsofdisorderthepredictorvariable.Age-in-months,
PPVTscores,andspeechconditionwereenteredascontrolpredictorvariables.
Results
EffectofSpeakeronLikeability
Theanalysisindicatedasignificantinteractionbetweengroupandspeechcondition,
F(1,30)=5.17,p=.030,ηp2=.147,whichisshowninFigure3.Neitherthesimpleeffectof
groupnorthatofspeechconditionwassignificant,thoughtheeffectofgroupapproached
significance(p=.051).
InsertFigure3abouthere.
Giventheinteraction,theeffectofgroupwasexploredfurtherinanalysessplitby
condition.Theseanalysesindicatedasignificanteffectofgrouponlikeabilityratingsinthe
unalteredspeechcondition,F(1,30)=6.79,p=.014,ηp2=.184,butnotinthefiltered
speechcondition.AsshowninFigure3,childrenwithASDwereperceivedassignificantly
lesslikeablethanchildrenwhoweretypicallydevelopingbasedontheunalteredspeech
![Page 24: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
23
samples1.Notethattheeffectissignificantevenwhenalphaiscorrectedformultiple
comparisons(i.e.,theBonferronicorrectedalphais.025).
RelationshipbetweenJudgmentsofDisorderandLikeability
TheresultsonlikeabilityrecallthosefromExperiment1inthatlistenersonly
discriminatedbetweenthegroupsofspeakersintheunalteredspeechcondition.The
similaritybetweenthetwoexperimentswasconfirmedinalinearregressionanalysis,
whichshowedthattheresidualizedjudgmentsofdisordercouldbeusedtoexplain/predict
likeabilityratings,β=.59,t(67)=6.01,p<.001,evenwithage-in-months,PPVT,and
speechconditioncontrolledinthemodel.Byitself,thepredictor“disordered”judgments
accountedfor42%ofthevarianceinlikeabilityratings.Noneofthecontrolvariables
explainedasignificantproportionofthevariance.
TherelationshipbetweenperceiveddisorderandlikeabilityisshowninFigure4.
Speechsamplesthatelicitedahigher“disordered”responseelicitedamorenegativesocial
evaluation(“Nah.Wouldn’tlikethiskid.”).Whensplitbyspeechcondition,wefindthatthe
correlationbetweenthejudgmentsofdisorderandlikeabilityratingswasstrongerinthe
unalteredspeechcondition,r(34)=.72,p<.001,comparedtothefilteredspeechcondition
r(34)=.48,p=.004,thoughthisdifferencewasnotsignificant,z=1.51,p=.066(one-
tailed).
1Recallthatthe7-pointlikeabilityscalewasanchoredsuchthathigherscoresindicateamorenegativesocialevaluationthanlowerscores(“1=Awesome!Lovethiskid.”versus“7=Nah.Wouldn’tlikethiskid.”).
![Page 25: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
24
InsertFigure4abouthere.
Discussion
TheresultsfromExperiment2indicatethatlaylistenersevaluatechildrenwithASD
morenegativelythantheirtypicallydevelopingpeers.Thus,likeinExperiment1,listeners
wereabletodistinguishbetweenspeakersbasedontheshortspeechsamplesprovided.
TheresultsalsoparallelthosefromExperiment1inthatlistenerswerenotableto
distinguishbetweenthedifferentgroupsofspeakersinthefilteredspeechcondition.A
regressionanalysisconfirmedthatthesimilaritiesbetweenExperiment1andExperiment
2wereduetoasignificantcorrelationbetweenlaylistenersjudgmentsofdisorderand
theirsocialevaluationofchildren.Next,weinvestigatewhetherthiscorrelationmeansthat
thesamesoundpatternstriggerboththeperceptionofdisorderandanegativesocial
evaluation.
EXPERIMENT3
InExperiment3,furtherperceptualevaluationofchildren’sspeechandacoustic
measuresofsegmentalandsuprasegmentalfeatureswereusedtoidentifythespeech
soundpatterningthatmediatedlisteners’judgmentsof“typical”versus“disordered”in
Experiment1andtheirlikeabilityratingsinExperiment2.Thegoalwastoanswerthe
questionofwhetherbothtypesofjudgmentsreferencethesamepatternsinorderto
understandwhyajudgmentofdisordermayleadtoanegativesocialevaluation.Thus,the
focusofExperiment3isonlisteners’behavior.Wedonotinvestigatethisbehaviorasa
functionofthespeakergroups,butdoconfirmthatchildrenwithASDdifferfromtypically
developingchildrenalongtheperceptualandacousticdimension(s)thatpredictjudgments
ofdisorderandtheirlikeabilityratings.
![Page 26: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
25
Methods
Participants
Sixteennewcollege-agedadultsratedtheunalteredspeechsamplesalongseveral
dimensions.Theseadultswererecruitedfromintroductorypsychologyandlinguistics
classes,andreceivedcoursecreditfortheirparticipation.Allreportednormalhearingand
Englishastheirnativelanguage.
RatingTask
ListenersratedtheunalteredspeechsamplesfromExperiment1and2ona7-point
Likertscalealongthe5dimensionsderivedfromthesubjectivefeedbackacquiredin
Experiment1:articulation,speechclarity,fluency,andaccenting.Afifthdimension,
monotony,wasincludedtodifferentiateratingsthatmayhavebeenduetodifferences
appropriatelypitchaccentinglinguisticcontent(i.e.,tune-to-textalignment)fromthose
duesimplytopitchvariability.Listenerswereonlytoldthattheywouldberatingchildren’s
speechalongdifferentperceptualdimensions.Listenerswerealsotoldtheagerangeof
childspeakers,butnomentionwasmadeofthefactthatsomeofthechildrenwere
receivingspeechandlanguagetherapyintheschools.Thespeechsampleswereexplained
asbeforewithreferencetotheelicitationmethod.Onlyunalteredspeechsampleswere
usedinExperiment3becausetheseelicitedthehighestcorrelationsbetweenjudgmentsof
disorderandlikeability(seeExperiment2),andbecauseweneededtolimitthenumberof
stimulipresentedtolistenersinorderforthemtoratealldimensionswithinthe45to55
minutesallottedto“workwithbreaks”duringtheexperiment.
Listenerssatinfrontofacomputermonitorwiththeanchorsdisplayedabovethe
ratingscale,whichwasrepresentedasanumberedsequenceof7buttons.Thelowvalue
onthescalewasanchoredwithadescriptionoftypicalspeechandthehighvaluewitha
![Page 27: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
26
descriptionofatypicalspeech.Thelowandhighanchorsforarticulationwere“1=ALL
soundscorrectlyproduced”and“7=NOsoundscorrectlyproduced;”forclearness,“1=
ExtremelyClear”and“7=TotallyUnclear;”forfluency,“1=SuperFluent”and“7=Really
Disfluent”.Theanchorsforaccenting2were,respectively,“1=EmphasizesMostImportant
Words”and“7=EmphasizesOnlyIrrelevantWords;”andformonotony,“1=VeryLively”
and“7=TotallyMonotonous.”Listenersheardaspeechsampleoverheadphones,ratedthe
sampleonthescalealongthespecifieddimension,clicked“OK”andadvancedtoanew
screenandanewsample.Thereweretworepetitionsofeachsampleasbefore.Allsamples
werepresentedinrandomorder.Theorderinwhichdimensionswereratedwasvaried
acrosslisteners.Fourteenlistenerscompletedratingsalongthearticulationdimension3.All
listenerscompletedratingsalongallotherdimensions.
AcousticMeasurements
Inordertobettercharacterizespeechsoundpatterningrelevanttothedimensions
ofarticulation,speechclarity,fluency,accenting,andmonotony,anumberofacoustic
segmentalandsuprasegmentalmeasuresweretakenonthe136utterancesthatwerethe
speechsamplesprovidedtolisteners.Measurementswerebasedonthehand-
segmentationoftheutterancesintoconsonantandvowelintervalsinPraatusingstandard
segmentationcriteria(see,e.g.,Redford,2014).Voweldurations,F0,F1,andF2were
automaticallyextracted.ThemeasurementintervalforF0wassetat.01secondsandthe
2Theanchorsforratingalongtheaccentingdimensionweremeanttodrawlisteners’attentiontotheintonationalaspectsofthephrase,andespeciallytotheappropriate/inappropriateuseofprosodicfocus,followingtheliteratureonprosodicdeficitsinspeechproducedbyindividualswithASD.3Listenerswererun2atatimeinthelaboratory.Ononeoccasion,theexperimentalsessionstartedlateandsothelistenerswhoparticipatedinthatsessionwerenotabletocompletethetaskintime.Sincetaskorderwasvariedacrosssessions,bothlistenersintheshortenedsessionwereunabletocompletethesame/lasttaskinthesession.
![Page 28: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
27
rangesetfrom75to600Hz.ValuesthatdeviatedoneSDfromaspeaker’smean,werere-
measuredbyhand.VowelformantmeasureswerebasedonthePraatLPCalgorithmin
timestepsequalto10percentofthevowelinterval,andwiththemaximumnumberof
formantssetto5andmaximumformantfrequencyto6000Hz.Everyformanttrackwas
visuallyinspected,thenhand-correctedandre-measuredifthetrackswereoff.
Segmentalmeasures.Voweldurationandformantmeasureswereusedtoderive3
measuresofarticulation:schwaduration,meannormalizedvariabilityinschwaduration,
andF1xF2vowelspace.Voweldurationandstabilityinrepeatedvowelproductionare
indicatorsofspeechmotorcontrol,withshorterdurationsandmorestableproductionsa
featureofgreatercontrolovertargetedarticulations(seeRedford&Oh,2017).Schwa
vowelsareminimallyinfluencedbyprosodicfactorssincetheydonotreceivelexicalstress
orphrasalaccents,someanschwadurationandvariabilityindurationislesssensitiveto
contexts.Therewerealsomultipleschwaproductionsineveryspeechsample,soschwa
durationandvariabilitywassomethingwecouldcalculateforallspeakers.TheF1xF2
vowelspacewasdefinedbyfullvowelsthatwerealsomonopthongs.Thespacewas
calculatedasthemeanEuclidiandistanceofeachfullvowelfromthemeanfullvowelin
eachutterance.Thismeasurethusprovidesinformationaboutvoweldistinctivenesswithin
anutterance,whichisacorrelateofspeechclarity(see,e.g.,Lindblom,1990).
Suprasegmentalmeasures.ThedurationandF0measureswereusedtoderive
measuresofrate,rhythmandintonation.Articulationratewascalculatedasnumberof
syllablespersecondofspeech,excludinganysilencesduetopausing,whichwasextremely
rareinanycase(seespeechsamplesunderExperiment1).Thecoefficientofvariationin
voweldurations(i.e.,standarddeviation/mean)wasusedtocapturespeechrhythm.This
measurehasbeenproposedintheliteratureasaneffective,simple-to-compute,rate-
![Page 29: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
28
normalizedrhythmmetric(White&Mattys,2007).Finallengthening,afeatureofprosodic
boundarymarking,wascalculatedastheratioofphrase-finalvoweldurationtothe
averagenon-finalvowelduration.Anotherfeatureofprosodicboundarymarking,final
pitchchange,wascalculatedasF0changefromthepenultimatetoultimatesyllableofthe
phrase.Pitchdeclination,acharacteristicofthewholeintonationcontour,wascalculated
astheslopeofabestfitregressionlineplottedthroughsequentiallyarrangedF0valuesfor
eachutterance.
Inadditiontothesegmentalandsuprasegmentalmeasures,severalacoustic
measurescorrespondingtovoiceweretakentodeterminewhetheroverallvoicequality
mighthavecontributedtolistenersjudgmentsofdisorder(see,e.g.,Shribergetal.,2001).
ThemeasuresweremeanF0andtwomeasuresoftheproportionoftimeduringaglottal
periodwherethereisnocontactbetweenthevocalfolds,whichisrelatedtovocalquality
rangingfromvocalfrytobreathy.These“openness”measureswerethemeanamplitude
differencebetweenthefirstharmonic(H1)andthesecondharmonic(H2)acrossallvowel
intervals,andorthemeanamplitudedifferencebetweenH1andthefirstformant(A1)(see
Garellek&Keating,2011).AswiththeF0andformantvalues,phonationmeasureswere
calculatedautomaticallyusingaPraatscript.F0andformantcalculationsweresetas
before.
DataReduction
Ratingsalongeachdimensionwerestandardizedwithinlistenerbyconvertingthe
Likertscoresintoz-scores.Ratingswerethenaveragedacrosslistenersandwithin
speakers.Inter-correlationsbetweentherateddimensionswereassessed.Ratingsalong
thedimensionsofarticulation,clearness,andfluencywereexceptionallyhighlycorrelated,
withcorrelationcoefficientsrangingfrom.92(articulationandfluency)to.96(articulation
![Page 30: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
29
andclearness).Accordingly,these3dimensionswerereducedtooneusingprincipal
componentsanalysis(PCA).ScoresfromthefirstfactorofthePCAweresavedandusedin
placeofthearticulation,clearness,andfluencyratings.Foreaseofreference,wewillrefer
tothesescoresascapturingthedimensionofintelligibility.Thisdescriptivelabelwas
chosenbecausetheconstituentcomponentsofthisshareddimension(e.g.,articulation,
clearness,andfluency)areallattributesofintelligiblespeech.Intelligibility,accenting,and
monotonywerethenenteredintoamultipleregressionmodeltopredictjudgmentsof
disorder(seebelow).Thismodeldidnotsufferfromunacceptablecollinearity(VIF<3.5).
Inter-correlationsbetweentheacousticmeasureswerealsoassessed.Manydidnot
reachsignificance.AllandonlytheonesthatdidareshowninTable5.Notethenear
perfectcorrelationbetweenthetwomeasuresrelatedtovoicequalityinthetable.Given
thehighdegreeofoverlap,thesemeasureswerereducedtooneusingPCA.Scoresfromthe
firstfactorofthePCAweresavedandusedinplaceoftheindividualH1-H2andH1-A1
measures.Foreaseofreference,wewillrefertothesescoresasmeasuresofvoicequality.
InsertTable5abouthere.
StatisticalAnalyses
Stepwiselinearregressionmodelingwasusedtoinvestigatetherelative
contributionoflistener-identifiedperceptualdimensionsofspeechsoundpatterningto
residualized“disordered”judgmentsandz-scoredlikeabilityratingsonunalteredspeech
samples.Age-in-monthsandreceptivevocabularyscoreswereincludedascontrol
variablesinthemodel.Backwardeliminationwasusedtoreducethenumberofpredictor
variablestoonlythosethatcontributedsignificantlytoexplaininglisteners’responses.The
![Page 31: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
30
sametechniquewasthenusedtocharacterizeinacoustictermstheperceptual
dimension(s)thatbestexplainedlisteners’behaviorinExperiments1and2.
Results
PerceptualBasisforJudgmentsofDisorder
Thefullmodelaccountedfor69%ofthevarianceinjudgmentsofdisorderandhad
anadjustedR2of.63.Thesignificantmodelwiththefewestpredictorsaccountedfor67%
ofthevarianceandhadanadjustedR2of.65.Theonlysignificantpredictorsinthismodel
wereage-in-months,β=.22,t(33)=2.10,p=.045,andintelligibility,β=.84,t(33)=7.98,p
<.001;thatis,theperceptualdimensionderivedfromtheoverlapinratingsofarticulation,
clearness,andfluency.Whereasintelligibilitybyitselfaccountedfor63%ofthevariancein
“disordered”judgments,themodelwithage-in-monthsalonewasnobetterthanthenull
modelataccountingforvariance.Figure5showstherelationshipbetweenpoor
intelligibility4and“disordered”judgments.
InsertFigure5abouthere.
Anindependentsamplest-testconfirmedthatvariancealongtheintelligibility
dimensionalsovariedsystematicallywiththegroupofspeakerswhoproducedthe
samples,MeanDifference=1.02,t(33)=3.40,p=.002(two-tailed).Althoughchildrenwith
ASDwereratedaslessintelligibleonaveragethantheirTDpeers,itisalsoevidentfrom
thedatapresentedinFigure5thatnotallchildrenwereratedasequallyunintelligiblenor
weretheyallratedasequally“disordered”.
4Recallthatthe7-pointratingscalewasanchoredsuchthathigherscoresaremorecompatiblewithdescriptionsofdisorderedspeech.(e.g.,“1=ALLsoundscorrectlyproduced”versus“7=NOsoundscorrectlyproduced”).
![Page 32: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
31
PerceptualBasisforLikeabilityRatings
Thefullmodelaccountedfor57%ofthevarianceinlikeabilityratingsandhadan
adjustedR2of.49.Thesignificantmodelwiththefewestpredictorsaccountedfor49%of
thevarianceandhadanadjustedR2of.46.Theonlysignificantpredictorsinthismodel
wereintelligibility,β=.56,t(33)=4.12,p<.001,andmonotony,β=.29,t(33)=2.15,p=
.040.Intelligibilityaccountedfor42%ofthevarianceinlikeabilityratingsbyitself,and
monotonyfor21%.Thus,itwouldseemthatintelligibilityandmonotonyeachaccounted
forsomeofthesamevarianceintheregressionmodel.Figure6showstherelationship
betweenintelligibilityandlikeability,wherehighervaluesalongeachaxisindicatemore
negativeevaluations.
InsertFigure6abouthere.
AcousticCharacterizationofIntelligibilityandMonotony
Segmental,suprasegmental,andvoicemeasureswereenteredaspredictorvariables
inastepwiseregressionmodelstoprovideacousticcharacterizationsoftheperceptual
dimensions,intelligibilityandmonotony.Thefullmodelsaccountedfor46%ofthe
varianceinintelligibilityandfor68%ofthevarianceinmonotony;theyhadadjustedR2sof
.20and.55,respectively.Thesignificantmodelswiththefewestpredictorsaccountedfor
41%ofthevarianceinintelligibilityandfor56%ofthevarianceinmonotony;theyhadan
adjustedR2sof.17and.50,respectively.Articulationratewasthesolesignificantpredictor
ofintelligibility,β=–.41,t(33)=–2.55,p=.016:slowerrateswereassociatedwithpoorer
intelligibility.Bycontrast,thereducedmodelofmonotonyincludedtwosignificant
segmentalmeasures—meanschwaduration,β=.31,t(33)=2.54,p=.016,andvowel
distinctiveness,β=–.25,t(33)=–2.04,p=.050—andtwosignificantvoicemeasures—
![Page 33: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
32
meanF0,β=–.37,t(33)=–2.45,p=.020,andvoicequality,β=.44,t(33)=2.91,p=.007.
Thedirectionoftheeffectofschwadurationisconsistentwiththeeffectofspeechrate:
longerschwawereassociatedwithgreaterperceivedspeechmonotonythanshorter
schwas.Theeffectofvoweldistinctivenessindicatesthatmoremonotonousspeechwas
alsolikelylessclear.Lowerpitchandlessmodal(morebreathy)voicequalitieswerealso
associatedwithmoremonotonousspeech.Giventhislistofsignificantpredictorvariables,
itwouldseemthatalthoughtheperceptualdimensionsofintelligibilityandmonotonyare
acousticallyseparable,botharewell-characterizedbyfeaturesthataremoreassociated
withspeechmotorandvoicefactorsthanwithlinguisticprosody.
Discussion
TheresultsfromExperiment3stronglysuggestthatlaylistenersattendtopatterns
relatedtomotorspeechratherthantoprosodiconeswhentheyareaskedtoclassify
children’sspeechsoundpatternsas“disordered”or“typical”andtoevaluatehowmuch
theylikeachildbasedonshortspeechsamples.Thisconclusionisbasedonthefindingthat
“accenting,”themostovertlyprosodicperceptualdimensionevaluated,wasnota
significantpredictorofjudgmentsofdisorderoroflikeability.Moreover,thestrongest
predictorofbothperceiveddisorderandlikeabilitywasintelligibility,adimensionderived
fromtheoverlapinratingsofarticulation,clarity,andfluency.Thisdimensionwasbest
characterizedbyarticulationrate.Ratemaybeasuprasegmentalfeatureofspeech,butitis
onemoretypicallyassociatedwitharticulatorytimingcontrolthanwithprosody(see,e.g.,
Redford,2014).Similarly,thedimension“monotony”wasbestcharacterizedbymeasures
thatcapturedtheaccuracyandspeedofsegmentalarticulations(schwadurationand
voweldistinctiveness)andbymeasuresrelatedtovoicecharacteristics(pitchandvoice
quality)thatarealsooutsidethedomainofprosody,strictlydefined.
![Page 34: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
33
GENERALDISCUSSION
AlthoughchildrenandadultswithASDareoftenreportedtohaveatypicalspeech
patterns,manyindividualswithautismshownoprosodicdeficits(seeShribergetal.,2001;
2011;Nadig&Shaw,2012).Moreover,thebehaviorsthatarecentraltoestablishinga
diagnosisofautismaremoreobviouslysociallydisabling(e.g.,notrespondingtoone’sown
name)anddeviant(e.g.,echolalicspeech)thanwemightimagineunusualspeechpatterns
tobe.Thecurrentstudywasmotivatedbythequestionofwhetheratypicalspeechpatterns
inchildrenwithASDisimportantenoughtowarrantresearch.Inaclinicaloreducational
context,thenotionofwhatbehaviorisorisnotimportanttounderstandamountstoa
questionabouttheeffectsthatsuchbehaviorhasonpeerrelationsoronlearning.The
resultsfromthepresentstudyprovideevidenceinsupportoftheviewthatatypicalspeech
soundpatternsmarkchildrenwithASDasdifferentfromtheirTDpeers,andarelikelyto
createbarrierstopositivesocialinteractions.Weconcludefromthisthatatypicalspeech
shouldbeaddresseddirectlyinchildrenwithASD.Theresultsdonot,however,support
theviewthatprosodyshouldnecessarilybethefocusoftheseefforts.Wheninputis
limited,listeners’judgmentsareinfluencedbyspeechpatternsthatlikelyreflectdelayedor
deviantspeechmotorcontrolandunusualvoicequalityratherthanprosodicdeficitsper
se.Morespecifically,thecurrentstudyidentifiesintelligibilityastheprimaryperceptual
dimensionthatmediatesbothlisteners’judgmentsofdisorderandtheirsocialevaluation
ofthechildbasedonshortsnippetsofspeech.Thisdimensioniscloselyassociatedwiththe
perceivedgoodnessandfluency(=speed)ofsegmentalarticulation.
Intelligibilityisaconceptfundamentaltostudiesofmotorspeechdisorders(e.g.,
dysarthria),whereitisusuallymeasuredasthenumberofdistinctspeechsoundsorwords
recognizedbyapaneloflisteners(seee.g.,Kentetal.,1989).Wewouldthereforeliketo
![Page 35: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
34
clarifythatnoneofthechildrenwhoparticipatedinthepresentstudysoundeddysarthric.
Theirspeechwasnotdistorted,justdifferentsounding.Thisdifferencewascharacterized
bythereferringSLPsasunusualprosody,butlisteners’behaviorsuggeststhatperhaps
speechmotorfactors,ratherthanlinguisticprosodicones,weremoreimportanttothe
perceptionofdifference.Itisforthisreasonthatwewouldarguethatthenotionof
intelligibilitybettercaptureswhatlistenersweremostsensitivetowhendistinguishing
childrenwithASDfromtheirtypicallydevelopingpeersbasedontheshortspeechsamples
provided.Additionalevidenceforthisviewcomesfromthefeedbackthatlisteners
providedinExperiment1.Forexample,Listeners1,2,and15allnotethattheirjudgments
wereaffectedbywhattheyperceivedas“slurred”or“slurring.”Listeners11and13refer
totheinfluenceofa“lisp”ontheirjudgments.Listeners3,4,5,7,8,11,and15commenton
aspectsofrate.Relatedly,articulationratewasasignificantpredictorofintelligibility.
Elsewhere,wehavefoundelsewherethatdefaultarticulationratesindextheacquisitionof
articulatorytimingcontrolmorebroadly,atleastintypicallydevelopingchildren(Redford,
2014).
Theconclusionthatlistenersmayhavefocusedonspeechmotorfactorsto
distinguishbetweenchildrenwithASDandTDisatoddswiththecharacterizationof
autisticspeechasprosodicallydisorderedifoneunderstandsspeechprosodyinlinguistic
terms;thatis,asasystemofmetricalgroupingandaccentplacementsgovernedbya
prosodicgrammarthatislinked,atsomelevel,tosyntacticstructureandsemantic-
pragmaticmeaning.Deficitsinlexicalstressplacementandcontrastivefocusmeetthis
definitionofprosodyandsoareconsistentwiththeprimarydeficitsinsemantic-pragmatic
communicationthatisassociatedwithASD,butthesewerenotfoundhere.Moreover,the
differenceswedidfindcorrespondtothemanyotherdocumenteddifferencesbetween
![Page 36: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
35
autisticspeechandtypicalspeechthatarenotnecessarilyprosodic.Inparticular,acoustic-
phoneticstudiesthatcharacterizedifferencesbetweenASDandtypicalspeechintermsof
globaldifferencesinpitchrangeandvariability(Diehletal.,2009;Nadig&Shaw,2012),
longerwordandutterancedurations(Diehl&Paul,2012),andhigherratesofdisfluencies
(Shribergetal.,2001)areallcompatiblewithdifferencesinplanningandproductionand
notwithprosodyperse.
Thefindingsthatlistenersaresensitivetospeechintelligibilitywhenjudgingshort
snippetsofspeechandthatthissensitivityaffectstheirsocialevaluationofaspeakeralso
hasimplicationsforconceptualizingthesemantic-pragmaticimpairmentsinchildrenwith
ASD.Inparticular,afocusonintelligibilityemphasizestheimportanceofthesocial
interactionfordefining“impaired”,“atypical”or“disordered”,andsosupportsaviewof
pragmaticimpairmentasemergentfromtheinteractionbetweenspeakersandlisteners
(seePerkins,2007).Whenthecontributionsofbothareinbalance,communicationis
successfulandpragmaticsareintact.Whenonememberofthedyadmustadaptinan
unfamiliar,asymmetricalmannertoaccommodatetheother’sbehavior,then
communicationsuffersandpragmaticsisimpaired.Thisviewofimpairmenthasthe
advantageofallowingustounderstandwhylisteners’perceptionofdisordermightaffect
theirsocialevaluationofthespeaker.Anydecrementinspeechintelligibilityislikelyto
resultincommunicativeasymmetry;namely,anasymmetrythatcreatesextraworkforthe
listener.Iflisteners(implicitly)resentdoingextrawork,thentheymayblamethespeaker.
NotethatthisexplanationissimilartothatwhichRiceandcolleaguesproposedtoexplain
theirfindingsthatchildrenwithspecificlanguageimpairmentorwhoaresecondlanguage
speakersofEnglishhavelessaccesstopositivesocialinteractionsthantheirtypically
![Page 37: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
36
developingandnativeEnglish-speakingpeersinUSschools(Riceetal.,1991;Gertneretal.
1994).
Althoughwehavesuggestedthatlistenersaremoresensitivetospeechsound
patternsthatsuggestdeficitsinspeechmotorcontrolratherthaninprosody,itis
importanttonotethatthestrengthofthisconclusionislimitedbytheexperimentaldesign
weused.Specifically,theshort,decontextualizedspeechsamplespresentedtolisteners
mayhaveforcedthemtolatchontosomethingotherthanprosodytomaketheirdecisions.
Ifunusualprosodyinautismoftenreflectsinappropriateorincorrectprosodicfocus
(Shribergetal.,2001;Paul,Augustyn,etal,2005;Peppéetal.,2007),thenaccessto
languagecontextwouldbecriticalforlistenerstoidentifytheatypicalpatterns.Infact,one
waytointerpretthefindingthatlistenerscouldonlydistinguishchildrenwithASDfrom
theirtypicallydevelopingpeersintheunalteredspeechconditionisthatonlythis
conditionprovidedlistenerswiththerelevantinformationabouttune-to-textalignment.
Moreover,somelistenersdidcommentthathowaspeakerusedaccentinginfluencedtheir
judgmentsofdisorder.Forexample,Listener4inExperiment1notedthattheirjudgment
wasaffectedbywhetherthechild“stressedtherightsyllables”andListener16was
sensitivetowhetherornotemphasiswasusedcorrectly.Futureworkshouldevaluatethe
relativeinfluencesofintelligibilityandungrammaticalprosodicfocusassignmentand
phrasingonlisteners’behaviorbyusinglongerstretchesofspeechthatprovideadiscourse
context.
Inconclusion,theresultsfromthepresentstudyshowthatlaylistenersare
sensitivetotheatypicalspeechpatternsproducedbychildrenwithASD.Thissensitivity
alsoinfluencestheirsocialevaluationofthespeaker.Speakerswhoproducedpatternsthat
wereperceivedasatypicalordisorderedandratedaslesslikeable.Thesefindingsvalidate
![Page 38: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
37
effortstounderstandandtreatatypicalspeechinASD,eveninthecontextofthemany
otherdisablingbehaviorsassociatedwiththedisorder.Thepresentstudyalsoaddstoa
bodyofliteratureonlistenersensitivitytosocial-indexicalaspectsofspeech,butsuggests
thatsomenegativebiasestowardsspeakersmayemergefromthemodelingeffortthatis
neededforlistenerstoengageinsuccessfulcommunicationwithanunfamiliarspeaker.
![Page 39: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
38
REFERENCES
AmericanPsychiatricAssociation.(2013).Diagnosticandstatisticalmanualofmental
disorders:DSM-5.Washington,D.C:AmericanPsychiatricAssociation.
Baltaxe,C.A.,&Guthrie,D.(1987).Theuseofprimarysentencestressbynormal,aphasic,
andautisticchildren.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,17,255-271.
Boersma,P.&Weenink,D.(2009).Praat,version5.1.16.Availableathttp://www.praat.org.
Bonneh,Y.S.,Levanon,Y.,Dean-Pardon,O.,Lossos,L.,&Adini,Y.(2011).Abnormalspeech
spectrumandincreasedpitchvariabilityinyoungautisticchildren.FrontiersinHuman
Neuroscience,4,2347.
Clopper,C.G.,&Bradlow,A.R.(2009).FreeclassificationofAmericanEnglishdialectsby
nativeandnon-nativelisteners.JournalofPhonetics,37,436-451.
Clopper,C.G.,&Pisoni,D.B.(2004).Someacousticcuesfortheperceptualcategorization
ofAmericanEnglishregionaldialects.JournalofPhonetics,32,111-140.
Depape,A.M.,Chen,A.,Hall,G.B.,&Trainor,L.J.(2012).Useofprosodyandinformation
structureinhighfunctioningadultswithautisminrelationtolanguageabilitiy.
FrontiersinPsychology,3,1664-1678.
Diehl,J.J.,Watson,D.,Bennetto,L.,McDonough,J.,&Gunlogson,C.(2009).Anacoustic
analysisofprosodyinhigh-functioningautism.AppliedPsycholinguistics,30,385-404.
Diehl,J.J.,&Paul,R.(2012).Acousticdifferencesintheimitationofprosodicpatternsin
childrenwithautismspectrumdisorders.ResearchinAutismSpectrumDisorders,6,
123-134.
Dunn,L.,&Dunn,D.(2007).PeabodyPictureVocabularyTest,FourthEdition(PPVT-4).
Minneapolis,MN:NCSPearson.
![Page 40: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
39
Frith,U.(1991).Translationandannotationof“Autisticpsychopathy”inchildhood,byH.
Asperger.InU.Frith(Ed.),AutismandAspergersyndrome.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Garellek,M.&Keating,P.(2011).Theacousticconsequencesofphonationand
toneinteractionsinJalapaMazatec.JournaloftheInternationalPhoneticAssociation,41,
185-205.
Gertner,B.L.,Rice,M.L.,&Hadley,P.A.(1994).Influenceofcommunicativecompetenceon
peerpreferencesinapreschoolclassroom.JournalofSpeech,LanguageandHearing
Research,37,913-923.
Grossman,R.B.,Bemis,R.H.,PlesaSkwerer,D.,&Tager-Flusberg,H.(2010).Lexicaland
affectiveprosodyinchildrenwithhigh-functioningautism.JournalofSpeech,Language
andHearingResearch,53,778.
Kent,R.D.,Weismer,G.,Kent,J.F.,&Rosenbek,J.C.(1989).Towardphoneticintelligibility
testingindysarthria.JournalofSpeechandHearingDisorders,54,482-499.
Klin,A.,Sparrow,S.,Marans,W.D.,Carter,A.,&Volkmar,F.R.(2000).Assessmentissuesin
childrenandadolescentswithAspergerSyndrome.InA.Klin,F.R.Volmar,&S.S.
Sparrow(Eds.),Aspergersyndrome,(pp.309-339).NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Lass,N.J.,Almerino,C.A.,Jordan,L.F.,&Walsh,J.M.(1980).Theeffectoffilteredspeechon
speakerraceandsexidentifications.JournalofPhonetics,8,101-112.
Lindblom,B.(1990).Explainingphoneticvariation:asketchoftheH&Htheory.InW.J.
Hardcastle&A.Marchal(Eds.),SpeechProductionandSpeechModelling(pp.403-439).
TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademic.
McCaleb,P.,&Prizant,B.M.(1985).Encodingofnewversusoldinformationbyautistic
children.JournalofspeechandHearingDisorders,50,230.
![Page 41: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
40
Moore,B.C.J.(1994).Anintroductiontothepsychologyofhearing,3rdEdition.London:
AcademicPress.
Munson,B.(2007).Theacousticcorrelatesofperceivedmasculinity,perceivedfemininity,
andperceivedsexualorientation.LanguageandSpeech,50,125-142.
Munson,B.,McDonald,E.C.,DeBoe,N.L.,&White,A.R.(2006).Theacousticandperceptual
basesofjudgmentsofwomenandmen'ssexualorientationfromreadspeech.Journalof
Phonetics,34,202-240.
Nadig,A.,&Shaw,H.(2012).Acousticandperceptualmeasurementofexpressiveprosody
inhigh-functioningautism:increasedpitchrangeandwhatitmeanstolisteners.
JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,42,499-511.
Paul,R.,Augustyn,A.,Klin,A.,&Volkmar,F.R.(2005).Perceptionandproductionof
prosodybyspeakerswithautismspectrumdisorders.JournalofAutismand
DevelopmentalDisorders,35,205-20.
Paul,R.,Bianchi,N.,Augustyn,A.,Klin,A.,&Volkmar,F.R.(2008).Productionofsyllable
stressinspeakerswithautismspectrumdisorders.ResearchinAutismSpectrum
Disorders,2,110-124.
Peppé,S.,&McCann,J.(2003).Assessingintonationandprosodyinchildrenwithatypical
languagedevelopment:ThePEPS-Ctestandtherevisedversion.Clinical
LinguisticsandPhonetics,17,345–354.
Peppé,S.,McCann,J.,Gibbon,F.,O'Hare,A.,&Rutherford,M.(2007).Receptiveand
expressiveprosodicabilityinchildrenwithhigh-functionningautism.JournalofSpeech,
Language,andHearingResearch,50,1015-1028.
Perkins,M.(2007).Pragmaticimpairment.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Port,R.F.(2003).Meterandspeech.JournalofPhonetics,31,599–611.
![Page 42: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
41
Purnell,T.,Idsardi,W.,&Baugh,J.(1999).Perceptualandphoneticexperimentson
AmericanEnglishdialectidentification.JournalofLanguageandSocialPsychology,18,
10-30.
Redford,M.A.(2013).Acomparativeanalysisofpausinginchildandadultstorytelling.
AppliedPsycholinguistics,34,569-589.
Redford,M.A.(2014).Theperceivedclarityofchildren'sspeechvariesasafunctionof
theirdefaultarticulationrate.JournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,135,2952-
2963.
Redford,M.A.&Oh,G.(2017).Therepresentationandexecutionofarticulatorytimingin
firstandsecondlanguageacquisition.JournalofPhonetics.doi:
0.1016/j.wocn.2017.01.004.
Rice,M.L.,Sell,M.A.,&Hadley,P.A.(1991).Socialinteractionsofspeech,andlanguage-
impairedchildren.JournalofSpeech,LanguageandHearingResearch,34,1299.
Schopler,E.,VanBourgodien,M.E.,Wellman,G.J.,&Love,S.R.(2010).ChildhoodAutism
RatingScale,SecondEdition(CARS2).Torrance,CA:WPS.
Sharda,M.,Subhadra,T.P.,Sahay,S.,Nagaraja,C.,Singh,L.,Mishra,R.,Singhalc,N.,Erickson,
D.,&Singh,N.C.(2010).Soundsofmelody--Pitchpatternsofspeechinautism.
NeuroscienceLetters,478,42-45.
Shriberg,L.D,Kwiatkowski,J.,Rasmussen,C.,Lof,G.,&Miller,J.(1992).TheProsody-Voice
ScreeningProfile(PVSP):PsychometricDataandReferenceInformationforChildren.
UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,WaismanCenteronMentalRetardationandHuman
Development.PhonologyProjectTechnicalReport1.
![Page 43: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
42
Shriberg,L.D.,Paul,R.,Black,L.M.,&vanSanten,J.P.(2011).Thehypothesisofapraxiaof
speechinchildrenwithautismspectrumdisorder.JournalofAutismandDevelopmental
Disorders,41,405-426.
Shriberg,L.D.,Paul,R.,McSweeny,J.L.,Klin,A.,Cohen,D.J.,&Volkmar,F.R.(2001).Speech
andprosodycharacteristicsofadolescentsandadultswithhigh-functioningautismand
Aspergersyndrome.JournalofSpeech,LanguageandHearingResearch,44,1097.
Tilsen,S.,&Johnson,K.(2008).Low-frequencyFourieranalysisofspeechrhythm.Journal
oftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,124,EL34–EL39.
VanBezooijen,R.(1995).SocioculturalaspectsofpitchdifferencesbetweenJapaneseand
Dutchwomen.LanguageandSpeech,38,253–265
White,L.,&Mattys,S.L.(2007).Calibratingrhythm:firstlanguageandsecondlanguage
studies.JournalofPhonetics,35,501–522.
![Page 44: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
43
TABLE1
CharacteristicsofparticipantswithSPEDeligibilitiesforreceivingspeechandlanguage
servicesintheschoolsunderASD.
Speaker Sex Age Symptoms Lg.Delay PPVTp109asd M 6;4 severe No 106
p110asd M 7;1 minimal Yes 119
p102asd M 7;9 severe Yes 126
p100asd M 7;11 severe Yes 83
p103asd M 8;1 moderate Yes 85
p107asd M 8;1 severe No 107
p108asd M 8;1 moderate Yes 112
p114asd M 8;1 minimal Yes 113
p115asd M 8;10 severe No 86
p101asd F 9;3 moderate No 83
p111asd F 9;4 severe No 80
p118asd M 9;6 severe Yes 104
p119asd M 9;6 severe Yes 78
p106asd M 10;3 severe Yes 94
p112asd M 10;9 minimal Yes 102
p113asd F 11;7 severe Yes 90
p116asd M 11;8 severe Yes 94
![Page 45: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
44
TABLE2
Characteristicsofparticipantswithtypicaldevelopment.
Speaker Sex Age PPVTp1032td M 6;4 112
p1037td M 7;2 121
p1061td M 7;7 90
p1073td M 7;11 106
p1011td M 8;0 117
p1083td M 8;0 147
p1045td F 8;1 129
p1072td M 8;2 114
p1016td M 9;0 134
p1058td F 9;2 103
p1075td F 9;4 88
p1026td M 9;5 110
p1027td M 9;7 129
p1006td F 10;0 111
p1010td M 10;1 111
p1001td F 10;10 135
p1022td M 10;10 130
![Page 46: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
45
TABLE3
Mean(andstandarddeviation)ofuntransformedandunstandardizedresponsesareshownas
afunctionofspeakergroup(TD=typicallydeveloping).Responsesofdisorderobtainedinthe
filteredspeech,unalteredspeech,andtext-basedjudgmenttaskswereaggregatedacross
samplesandlistenerstorenderaby-speakerperceiveddisorderscore(maximumscore=32
forspeech-basedjudgments;16fortext-basedjudgments).Comprehensionoffilteredspeech
wasratedona5-pointscale(nowordsunderstood=1;allwordsunderstood=5).Listeners
alsoratedhowconfidenttheywereintheirresponses(notatall=1;completelysure=5).
JudgmentTask Responsetype Childrenw/TD Childrenw/ASD
Filteredspeech(Experimental)
Cumulative“disordered” 12.53(7.08) 14.71(6.45)
confidence 3.27(0.31) 3.20(0.25)
Comprehension(Control)
ratingsfrom1to5 2.32(0.64) 2.10(0.50)
confidence 3.74(0.89) 3.61(0.91)
Unalteredspeech(Experimental)
Cumulative“disordered” 7.18(5.27) 18.35(7.25)
confidence 3.67(0.32) 3.47(0.19)
Text(Control)
Cumulative“disordered” 4.29(2.80) 7.24(3.54)
confidence 3.41(0.90) 3.38(0.93)
![Page 47: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
46
TABLE4
Summaryofindividuallistener’sresponsestotherequestforfeedbackonwhatspeech
characteristicsinfluencedtheirjudgmentsofdisorderinthefilteredandunalteredspeech
conditions.Theresponsesarecategorizedbymajortheme.
Listnr Articulation SpeechClarity Fluency Accenting
1 mispronoun-ciation
slurringofwords
fluidityand…fluctuation
appropriateflux…toaccent
2 slurredwords,concisepronunciation
choppy,flow,pausingatawkwardtimes
emphasisofaword,enthusiastic
3 clarity,unclearslowerspeech,streamingwords,rhythm
4 steadyrhythm,quickly,slowly,smoothly
stressedtherightsyllables,accents
5 enunciated slower,sortofflow upanddown,placedemphasis
6
distorted“r”and“l”sounds,oddlypronouncedblends
7 mispronouncedwords,sounds speechrate stresspatterns
8 slurred,clearer,easiertounderstand littleslower,faster enthusiasm
9 pausesbetween…phrases
mid-phraseinflections
10 soundeddisjoint emphasizecertainpoints,excitement
11 lisp,“r”sounds speakeffectively draggedtheirsyllablesout
12 muffled,extremelyunclear
13 lisp,pronounciating understand…clearly
14 naturalflow,rhythm,paceofwords tone,clashy
15 clearandprecise,slurred quickly
16 disorganizedtones,emphasizedfornopurpose
![Page 48: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
47
TABLE5
Allandonlysignificantpair-wisecorrelationsbetweenacousticmeasures.
SchwaDur.
Artic.Rate
F0Slope
FinalF0
MeanF0
H1–H2
H1–A1
SchwaDur. 1 –.43*
Artic.Rate 1 –.52** –.39*
F0Slope 1 –.41* –.44** –.53**
FinalF0Change 1
MeanF0 1 –.61** –.56**
H1–H2 1 .95**
H1–A1 1
*p<.05;**p<.001
![Page 49: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
48
FIGURELEGENDS
Figure1.Listeners’judgmentsofdisorder,absenteffectsoflanguage,areshownasa
functionofspeechconditionandspeakergroup(TD=typicallydevelopingchildren;
ASD=childrenwithASDandprosodicdisorder).
Figure2.Listeners’confidenceintheirjudgmentsofdisorderareshownasafunctionof
speechconditionandspeakergroup(TD=typicallydevelopingchildren;ASD=
childrenwithASDandprosodicdisorder).
Figure3.Listeners’ratingsofachild’slikeability(lowanchor=“Awesome!Lovethiskid.”;
highanchor=“Nah.Wouldn’tlikethiskid.”)shownasafunctionofspeechcondition
andspeakergroup(TD=typicallydevelopingchildren;ASD=childrenwithASDand
prosodicdisorder).
Figure4.Listeners’judgmentsofdisorderbasedonfilteredandunalteredspeechsamples
predictsanothergroup’slikeabilityratingsofthespeakerswhoproducedthose
samples.Lowvaluesalongthey-axisindicategreaterlikeabilitythanhighvalues.
Figure5.Theintersectionoflisteners’ratingsofthearticulation,clearness,andfluencyof
unalteredspeechsamples(=intelligibility)predictsanothergroup’sjudgmentsof
disorderbasedonthosesamespeechsamples.Text-basedjudgmentsofdisorder
arepartialledoutfromthevaluesshownalongthey-axis.
Figure6.Theintersectionoflisteners’ratingsofthearticulation,clearness,andfluencyof
unalteredspeechsamples(=intelligibility)predictsanothergroup’slikeability
ratingsofthespeakerswhoproducedthosesamples.Lowvaluesalongthey-axis
indicategreaterlikeabilitythanhighvalues.
![Page 50: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
49
FIGURE1
![Page 51: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
50
FIGURE2
![Page 52: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
51
FIGURE3
![Page 53: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
52
FIGURE4
![Page 54: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
53
FIGURE5
![Page 55: Lay listener classification and evaluation of typical and ... · Final version accepted for publication in Language and Speech June 6, 2017. Lay listener classification and evaluation](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041915/5e6965c2a1cb27074739f49b/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Classification and evaluation of child speech
54
FIGURE6