Linguistic features of stuttering during spontaneous speech.

PURPOSE: Previous work shows that linguistic features (e.g., word length, word frequency) impact the predictability of stuttering events. Most of this work has been conducted using reading tasks. Our study examined how linguistic features impact the predictability of stuttering events during spontaneous speech. METHODS: The data were sourced from the FluencyBank database and consisted of interviews with 35 adult stutterers (27,009 words). Three logistic regression mixed models were fit as the primary analyses: one model with four features (i.e., initial phoneme, grammatical function, word length, and word position within a sentence), a second model with six features (i.e., the features from the previous model plus word frequency and neighborhood density), and a third model with nine features (i.e., the features from the previous model plus bigram frequency, word concreteness, and typical age of word acquisition). We compared our models using the Area Under the Curve statistic. RESULTS: The four-feature model revealed that initial phoneme, grammatical function, and word length were predictive of stuttering events. The six-feature model revealed that initial phoneme, word length, word frequency, and neighborhood density were predictive of stuttering events. The nine-feature model was not more predictive than the six-feature model. CONCLUSION: Linguistic features that were previously found to be predictive of stuttering during reading were predictive of stuttering during spontaneous speech. The results indicate the influence of linguistic processes on the predictability of stuttering events such that words associated with increased planning demands (e.g., longer words, low frequency words) were more likely to be stuttered.

The effect of gap duration on the perception of fluent versus disfluent speech.

PURPOSE: Gap duration contributes to the perception of utterances as fluent or disfluent, but few studies have systematically investigated the impact of gap duration on fluency judgments. The purposes of this study were to determine how gaps impact disfluency perception, and how listener background and experience impact these judgments. METHODS: Sixty participants (20 adults who stutter [AWS], 20 speech-language pathologists [SLPs], and 20 naïve listeners) listened to four tokens of the utterance, "Buy Bobby a puppy," produced at typical speech rates. The gap duration between "Buy" and "Bobby" was systematically manipulated with gaps ranging from 23.59 ms to 325.44 ms. Participants identified stimuli as fluent or disfluent. RESULTS: The disfluency threshold - the point at which 50 % of trials were categorized as disfluent - occurred at a gap duration of 126.46 ms, across all participants and tokens. The SLPs exhibited higher disfluency thresholds than the AWS and the naïve listeners. CONCLUSION: This study determined, based on the specific set of stimuli used, when the perception of utterances tends to shift from fluent to disfluent. Group differences indicated that SLPs are less inclined to identify disfluencies in speech potentially because they aim to be less critical of speech that deviates from "typical".

Adults who stutter do not stutter during private speech.

PURPOSE: Adults who stutter tend not to stutter when they are alone. This phenomenon is difficult to study because it is difficult to know whether participants perceive that they are truly alone and not being heard or observed. This may explain the presence of stuttering during previous studies in which stutterers spoke while they were alone. We addressed this issue by developing a paradigm that elicited private speech, or overt speech meant only for the speaker. We tested the hypothesis that adults do not stutter during private speech. METHOD: Twenty-four participants were audio-/video-recorded while speaking in several conditions: 1) conversational speech; 2) reading; 3) private speech, in which deception was used to increase the probability that participants produced speech intended for only themselves; 4) private speech+, for which real-time transcription was used so that participants produced the same words as in the private speech condition but while addressing two listeners; and 5) a second conversational speech condition. RESULTS: Stuttering was not observed in more than 10,000 syllables produced during the private speech condition, except for seven possible, mild stuttering events exhibited by 3 of 24 participants. Stuttering frequency was similar for the remaining conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Adults appear not to stutter during private speech, indicating that speakers' perceptions of listeners, whether real or imagined, play a critical and likely necessary role in the manifestation of stuttering events. Future work should disentangle whether this is due to the removal of concerns about social evaluation or judgment, self-monitoring, or other communicative processes.