Misarticulations and word identification (Krueger et al., 2018)
2018-03-19T17:38:28Z (GMT) by
Purpose: The purpose of the present studies was to determine how children’s identification and processing of misarticulated words was influenced by substitution commonness.
Method: Sixty-one typically developing preschoolers across 3 experiments heard accurate productions of words (e.g., “leaf”), words containing common substitutions (e.g., “weaf”), and words containing uncommon substitutions (e.g., “yeaf”). On each trial, preschoolers chose between a real object picture (e.g., a leaf ) and a nonobject (e.g., an anomalous line drawing). Accuracy and processing were measured using MouseTracker and eye tracking.
Results: Overall, children chose real objects significantly more when presented with accurate productions (e.g., “leaf”) than misarticulated productions (e.g., “weaf” or “yeaf”). Within misarticulation conditions, children chose real objects significantly more when hearing common misarticulations (e.g., “weaf”) than uncommon misarticulations (e.g., “yeaf”). Preschoolers identified words significantly faster and with greater certainty in accurate conditions than misarticulated conditions.
Conclusions: The results of the present studies indicate that the commonness of substitutions influences children’s identification of misarticulated words. Children hear common substitutions more frequently and therefore were supported in their identification of these words as real objects. The presence of substitutions, however, slowed reaction time when compared with accurate productions.
Table S1. Duration of auditory stimuli for Experiments 1 and 3.
Table S2. Nonobject picture characteristics.
Table S3. Counterbalancing of visual and auditory stimuli by block.
Table S4. Experiment 2 stimuli words, speakers, durations, and substitute.
Experiment 3. Button box procedures and results.
Krueger, B. I., Storkel, H. L., & Minai, U. (2018). The influence of misarticulations on children’s word identification and processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 820–836. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0379