Science topic

Speech Production - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Speech Production, and find Speech Production experts.
Questions related to Speech Production
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
4 answers
A number of models for speech production are introduced in psycholinguistics (Fromkin, 1971; Garrett, 1975; Levelt, 1989; Dell, 1986) which one of these models do you support and why? Do you believe that one day humans will be able to fully and closely examine mental processes?!
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
4 answers
Sorry, the content of this question have been deleted for some reason
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Umar,
The following code should provide synthetized vowels at the output of a source-filter. You can upload vowels wav files at :
1st step : Compute lpc coefficients from a real speech sample (vowel)
[xData,Fs] = audioread('I.wav');
P = 10*floor(Fs/8000); % number of coefficients (10 for Fs=8000 Hz )
a = lpc(xData,P);
2nd step : Synthesized vowels by the source-filter model AR(P)
N = 40000; % number of samples wanted for the synthetized vowel
F0 = 200; % choose fondamental frequency between (40Hz - 400Hz)
pitchPeriod = floor(Fs/F0); % normalized value of pitch period
pitchReal = pitchPeriod + floor(0.5*randn(floor(N/pitchPeriod),1));
input(cumsum(pitchReal)) = 0.1*ones(length(pitchReal),1); % filling the vector with dirac impulses for each pitch period
vowel = filter(1, a, input); % output of the source-filter
soundsc(vowel,Fs) % hear the synthetic vowel
Sincerely,
Pascal
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
15 answers
  • Based on the model presented by Goh and Burns in "Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach" (Page 53), it seems that we have two sides of a bridge in terms of second language speaking competence. One of them is knowledge, and the other one is the skill. The "knowledge" phase puts the emphasis on teaching the components related to the knowledge of a language such as grammatical points, vocabulary, idioms, etc. Based on my interpretations of the first four chapters of the book, it seems that teaching the "knowledge" of a language is not going to result in competent second language learners in terms of their speaking competence. In fact, it seems that beginning the process of language teaching from the "knowledge" side is not going to reach to the other side of the bridge that is the skill.
  • If we investigate the other side of the bridge, the skill has some key features. A skill is unconscious, automatic, etc. Based on the mentioned model, moving from the bottom of the triangle to the top (from the skill to knowledge) might have better results in the sense of speaking competence. In fact, adding the needed knowledge to the already-gained skill might let the learners have access to the knowledge in a blink of an eye for negotiation of meaning while the needed knowledge without the presence of the needed skill might not be accessible for the negotiation of meaning. Metaphorically speaking, having a glass prior to pouring water in, is more logical than having water with no glass.
  • Having the mentioned points in mind, some language teachers limit the teaching a language to its knowledge. Now there are several questions to be asked:
  • 1. How can teachers move from skill to knowledge in practice?
  • 2. Do material designers consider such theoretical issues in designing coursebooks?
  • 3. Is there any relationship between the Interface hypothesis and the mentioned issues?
Reference
  1. Goh, C. C., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Relevant answer
Answer
Sabri Thabit Saleh Ahmed Thanks for your participation in my discussion and your nice answer. In my opinion, the authors of the mentioned book intended to mention that teaching the knowledge of a language with the aim of reaching to the skill in the second step is not a successful path. Therefore, it seems that it might be better to change the initiation point to the skill side.
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
2 answers
i want to work on a child of 3-6 month or above. my main focus is to study speech production of children depending on how fast they assimilate or pick. And the other topic is to make a comparative study of speech production and understanding capacity of children language between 3-9 month. furthermore i intend to see a critical examination of infants assimilation rate of the three major languages in Nigeria.
Relevant answer
Answer
Nice work, keep it up!
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
1 answer
Hi! So I am currently doing research on perilymph fistulas and have come across multiple case studies where the individuals speech production has been hindered. I am wondering if there is any information as to why that occurs. They also expressed difficulties in cognitive processing, what would be a plausible explanation for that as well? ---Thank you!
Relevant answer
Check if these authors are on RG:
The Perilymph Fistula Syndrome Defined in Mild Head Trauma
R. J. Grimm, W. G. Hemenway, P. R. Lebray & F. O. Black
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
7 answers
Dear everyone,
I'm currently designing my research on the learning of sentence stress by EFL learners. I've designed four sentences for each stress type, and plan to have my participants read each sentence twice (or three times, as the default design for research on speech production). I'm not sure if the numbers of sentences and repetitions for each stress type is sufficient for evaluating the L2 learners' performance.
Also, I'll ask my participants to do a perception task. Do I need to include the same amount of stimuli as in the production task?
I can have more sentences and ask my participants to repeat more, but that will be too demanding to the participants.
In brief, my question is: What is the ideal number of stimuli for a certain speech feature in order to assess L2 learners' perception and production of this feature?
Thanks a lot.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Congchao,
The big issue here will be with replication and how strong your internal validity is in the research design. As is well known since about 2010, there is a grave concern about the lack of replicability in many experimental studies -- especially those addressing human social sciences. The current recommendation regarding per subject varies from 5-10 repetitions. Here are a few articles that discuss some of this. I hope this helps
jack
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
16 answers
Recently, in my Psych of Music class, we were discussing the influence that music therapy (MT) has on people with aphasia after suffering a traumatic brain injury. After watching a video on Gabby Giffords, I started to wonder how internal speech is impacted, if at all. I am curious to see if internal speech plays a role in the positive outcomes of MT (in being able to produce internal music) and whether or not it is through the familiarity of MT music that provides cues for speech production. Please refer to my comment below for more information.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Chris,
While inner speech is usually comparatively poor in aphasia if comparing inner speech to neurotypical adults, I have found (on my page, "Inner Speech" area) that many individuals with aphasia, particularly non-fluent types of aphasia, do indeed have inner speech intact. In some cases, inner speech is particularly preserved relative to overt speech.
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
13 answers
I'm doing my dissertation on the subject matter of communication strategies and how to implement them into an ESL classroom and would require the knowledge and guidance of the 'higher spirits'.
I would like to get in touch with the experts of the field (CSs, speech fluency, English language teaching, dysfluency, [second] language acquisition, vocabulary] and share insights with them, if possible.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi,
I suggest that you search for these names:
Andrew Cohen
Rebecca Oxford
best,
Nourollah
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
6 answers
Dear all..................I need help
I conducted my study qualitatively by using structured interview to test my subjects in speech production and perception in word stress placement. I want to conduct another instrument to obtain  quantitative data  by using a questionnaire test. my study would be a mixed method , so , my question if I  have to use the same experimental words in the second instrument to reflect the research question of my study or different experimental words. In other words, if my study is a mixed method, shall I have to use the same tested words in both collected methods........any comments, suggestions...I appreciate. that..also I wonder if there is any reference about this matter because i could not  find answers to  to my questions. best regards
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with the comments above that this is basically quantitative research, where you are using two different methods to elicit the raw data that you want to study. The fact that one of these sources uses an interview technique does not automatically make that data qualitative, since you are using it for strictly quantitative purposes.
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
5 answers
In particular, during voiced speech production? I am looking for understanding the process of speech production in detail.
Relevant answer
Answer
Maybe You can see chapter
 Determination of Spectral Parameters of Speech Signal by Goertzel Algorithm,B. Tomas
Speech Technologies 01/2011;
 
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
7 answers
I am studying the acoustic correlates of breathy voice. Two of the measures I use are the difference between the amplitude of the first harmonic and the amplitude of a harmonic near the frequency of the first and third formant, respectively. While they make sense for stable monophthongs, they are less suitable for diphthongs and vowels near glides and liquids, where there is a long transition phase. What measures should I use in such cases? (just to be clear, I'm interested in the full segment, not just the stable edges)
Relevant answer
Answer
1. There is a follow-up to this paper that extends the methods to continuous speech rather than the sustained vowels that were used in the 1994 paper: 
Hillenbrand, J.M., and Houde, R.A. (1996). “Acoustic characteristics of breathy vocal quality: Dysphonic voices and continuous speech,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 311-321.
The methods are described in somewhat more detail.
2. Software for the CPP-S measure that is described in this paper can be downloaded here:
Look for these links:
  cpps.exe (right click and choose "Save target as"); Readme file
The 'readme' file gives the basics for using the software.
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
5 answers
Good to have an agreement on ubiquity of 1/f scaling, I also am of the opinion experimental control is essential (see Hasselman, 2013). I would add that direct confrontation of theoretical predictions is crucial as well:
"In order to advance scientific knowledge about scaling phenomena in living systems a program of strong inference that aims to produce closed theories of principles is needed. In order to reach this goal, empirical inquiries need to go beyond describing scaling phenomena in different populations in the context of impaired performance or pathology (e.g., Goldberger et al., 2002; Gilden and Hancock, 2007; West, 2010; Wijnants et al., 2012a). Several recent studies reveal scaling phenomena can be brought under experimental control, which is essential for a program of strong inference (e.g., Kello et al., 2007; Wijnants et al., 2009; Van Orden et al., 2010; Correll, 2011; Holden et al., 2011; Kuznetsov et al., 2011; Stephen et al., 2012). The diverging theoretical predictions examined in most studies reveal that the observed waveforms are more likely to originate from interaction-dominant complexity than from component-dominant mechanics (also see Turvey, 2007; Kello et al., 2010; Diniz et al., 2011)."
At least these articles revealing experimental control over scaling exponents should have been discussed:
Then, there are many more  studies that make risky predictions or directly confront two or more competing predictions (in fact, all predictions in 1/f studies are more risky than mainstream, because they concern interval predictions and not merely > 0). In any case, they do much more than 'just' show another case of 1/f noise in some population.
All the best,
Fred
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Brandon, thanks for your answer.
My questions were triggered by the article: "Experimental control of scaling behavior: what is not fractal?" by Aaron D Likens, Justin M Fine, Eric L Amazeen, Polemnia G Amazeen
I agree with the message of the article: Experimental control is crucial, but I claim that this has already been displayed in several previous studies of which I wonder why they were not discussed. For some reason these studies are also completely ignored by critics like Wagenmakers et al. (2012) http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2012/WagenmakersEtAl2012Topics.pdf
To return to your question, yes I believe that in addition to experimental control, the predictions about scaling behavior based on a principled, complex system approach, are much more risky and therefore should not be considered irrelevant, because of the frequency with which scaling is encountered: Theoretical considerations yield interval estimates of measurement outcomes. Not many theories about cognitive phenomena can do such a thing. 
Moreover, if systematic absence or presence of associations (by correlation) between scaling exponents and more traditional performance measures is theoretically predicted for different populations, then this would go beyond 'merely' evidencing  
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
3 answers
Dear all,
I am looking for a collaborator with expertise in running psycholinguistic experiments in speech production to undertake a research on competing inflectional morphology, specifically when two or three inflectional forms consistent with the sentence context compete to being selected in speech production. I hold a PhD in General Linguistics and work as an assistant professor in Iran, Persian Gulf University, English Language and Literature Department to teach linguistic courses. I have so far focused in my studies on lexical semantics, and at this phase of my studies, I am interested in exploring lexical semantics from the lens of a psycholinguist with a focus on lexical processing and access. Any further details to those interested would be provided on demand. I am looking forward to hearing from an expert to help as a mentor and joint author.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Fatemeh 
We are conducting research in the area of language and literacy in bilinguals in my lab. We study diverse language combinations.
Best
Alexandra
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
11 answers
I have sibilant fricative productions- and I want to "get rid" of the anatomical variation due to sex differences. Any formula that the community knows of which has proven to be reliable. Or a good literature recommendation?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you all for you thoughts and ideas. Nice thing is that I have both sibilant and vowel values for my (>100) speakers (60%f : 40%m). Infact I see sign. COG differences - which I interpreted - in line with Susanne - as intended (gender signal). Just wanted to make sure that the normalization issue, which is quite common when discussiing vowel results doesnt pop up for my sibilants. Maybe I should nevertheless also analyze the vowels and display gender differences  for consonants in comparison to gnder differences for vowel spaces and contrasts. Best X.
  • asked a question related to Speech Production
Question
1 answer
I have some questions about the speech production model of Caramazza (1997).
Caramazza does not postulate a lemma-level in his Independent Network (IN) model.
1. I have the impression that the level of 'syntactic features' is equivalent to the lemma level (except that the lemma is not modality-neutral). So, is it just another naming for lemma-level or is there really a difference?
2. Why is the 'semantic representation' not more strongly linked with the 'syntactic features' (p. 196)?
3. How can the orthographic and phonological word forms ('O- and P-lexemes') have influence on the 'syntactic features' but not the other way round (p. 196)?
4. Are the 'syntactic features' on the same level as the 'phonological lexemes' (figure at p. 196) or it there a hierarchy (figure at p. 197)?
Source: Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177-208.
I look forward to hearing your feedback!
Relevant answer
Answer
I have some modest knowledge about the basics of neurolinguistics but I am nontheless very interested in this question as a practicing conference interpreter. Should anyone interested in the issue wish to launch an experiment into the problem I am more than eager to participate as a subject or co-researcher.