4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Speech production variability in fricatives of children and adults: Results of functional data analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 124, Issue 5, Pages 3158-3170

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.2981639

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R03 DC004473-02, R03 DC004473-03, R03 DC004473, DC-04473-03, R03 DC004473-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates token-to-token variability in fricative production of 5 year olds, 10 year olds, and adults. Previous studies have reported higher intrasubject variability in children than adults, in speech as well as nonspeech tasks, but authors have disagreed on the causes and implications of this finding. The current work assessed the characteristics of age-related variability across articulators (larynx and tongue) as well as in temporal versus spatial domains. Oral airflow signals, which reflect changes in both laryngeal and supralaryngeal apertures, were obtained for multiple productions of /h s z/. The data were processed using functional data analysis, which provides a means of obtaining relatively independent indices of amplitude and temporal (phasing) variability. Consistent with past work, both temporal and amplitude variabilities were higher in children than adults, but the temporal indices were generally less adultlike than the amplitude indices for both groups of children. Quantitative and qualitative analyses showed considerable speaker- and consonant-specific patterns of variability. The data indicate that variability in /s/ may represent laryngeal as well as supralaryngeal control and further that a simple random noise factor, higher in children than in adults, is insufficient to explain developmental differences in speech production variability. (C) 2008 Acoustical Society of America. [DOI: 10.1121/1.2981639]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available