Motor programming for speech sequences

1
Motor programming for speech sequences

• D.L. Wright1, J.H. Rhee1,
• A. Vaculin1 D.A. Robin2.
• 1Human Performance Laboratory, Texas AM
  University,
• 2Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck
  Surgery and Physical Therapy, University of Texas
  Health Science Center at San Antonio

2
Impetus Apraxia of Speech

• Described as a motor programming problem and is
  manifest as
• speech segmentation in the form of increased
  segment and inter-segment durations, dysprosody,
  and slow speech

• Problem resides in resolving
• the demands of the programmed unit
• sequencing problem

3
Klapps (1996) account of motor programming
INT
SEQ

• focuses on the internal features of an element or
  chunk of movement and the time to resolve this
  component process depends on the complexity of
  the chunk. Can be preprogrammed (e.g., duration
  of response, CRT paradigm)

• focuses on placing multiple chunks into the
  correct order. Is implemented after imperative
  signal (e.g., number of elements, SRT paradigm)

4
Self-select paradigm and speech
Duration of programmed unit
Number of programmed units
5
Deger Ziegler (2002)
6
Mono vs Multi-syllabic /ba/
7
Timing performance of single and multi-syllable
/ba/
8
ST does not increase when preparing single
syllable /ba/ of longer duration
ns
Reaction time increased when preparing
multi-syllable utterances
9
Parameters delineating complexity of the utterance
INT Complexity (type of unit being prepared)
INT Complexity (units being prepared)
Bohland Guenther (2005). An fMRI investigation
of syllable sequence production. NeuroImage, 32,
821-841.
10
Defining complexity of the utterance
INT Complexity
CV ta
CC(C)V stra
Simple
SEQ Complexity
CV repeat ta-ta-ta-ta
CC(C)V repeat stra-stra-stra-stra
CC(C)V change ta-stra-ru-ta
Complex
Simple
Complex
11
Utterance Duration similar for mono-syllabic
utterances
12
ST increases with INT complexity for
mono-syllabic utterances
13
Duration for mono- and multi-syllabic utterances
14
ST increases with increased INT complexity
RT increases with increased SEQ complexity
resulting from (a) emptying more elements from
buffer, and (b) organizing specific transitions
15
Summary

• Klapps model
• Application to speech (cf. Klapp, 2003)
• SEQ for transitions and emptying
• Speech Domain
• Verify INT demand in speech with greater variety
  of CV vs. CC(C)V stimuli
• Verify the SEQ demand from transitions
• Stra-Stra-Ta-Ta (1) vs. Stra-Ta-Ta-Stra (2) vs.
  Stra-Ta-Stra-Ta (3)
• Extend to individuals with AOS
• INT vs. SEQ accounts

16
Magnuson, Robin, Wright, submitted
17
Magnuson, Robin, Wright, submitted