A Content-Processing View of Hesitation Phenomena

Hieke, Adolf E.

doi:10.1177/002383098102400203

Cited by 67 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Clark and Wasow suggest that repetitions can be used by speakers to serve more than one purpose, and a possible reason that repetition effects are not found in the present experiment may lie in a distinction originally proposed by Heike (1981), between repetitions which are followed by silence and those which are not. In line with the majority of observed repetitions , our materials did not include an additional pause after the repetition.…”

Section: Disfluent Repetitions Show Different Effects To Ers On the Pmentioning

confidence: 61%

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disfluencies can affect language comprehension, but to date, most studies have focused on disfluent pauses such as er. We investigated whether disfluent repetitions in speech have discernible effects on listeners during language comprehension, and whether repetitions affect the linguistic processing of subsequent words in speech in ways which have been previously observed with er s. We used eventrelated potentials (ERPs) to measure participants' neural responses to disfluent repetitions of words relative to acoustically identical words in fluent contexts, as well as to unpredictable and predictable words that occurred immediately postdisfluency and in fluent utterances. We additionally measured participants' recognition memories for the predictable and unpredictable words. Repetitions elicited an early onsetting relative positivity (100-400ms post-stimulus), clearly demonstrating listeners' sensitivity to the presence of disfluent repetitions. Unpredictable words elicited an N400 effect. Importantly, there was no evidence that this effect, thought to reflect the difficulty of semantically integrating unpredictable compared to predictable words, differed quantitatively between fluent and disfluent utterances. Furthermore there was no evidence that the memorability of words was affected by the presence of a preceding repetition. These findings contrast with previous research which demonstrated an N400 attenuation of, and an increase in memorability for, words that were preceded by an er. * Revised ManuscriptHowever, in a later (600-900ms) time window, unpredictable words following a repetition elicited a relative positivity. Reanalysis of previous data confirmed the presence of a similar effect following an er. The effect may reflect difficulties in resuming linguistic processing following any disruption to speech.

show abstract

Section: Disfluent Repetitions Show Different Effects To Ers On the Pmentioning

confidence: 61%

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the start of this section, we introduced the idea of repetition being used to resume speech after hesitating. Hieke (1981) differentiates between such retrospective repetitions, which enable a speaker to resume continuity after a break and prospective repetitions, which themselves buy time as the speaker deals with planning demands like lexical search.…”

Section: Repetitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluency and Disfluency

Lickley¹

2015

The Handbook of Speech Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Taking duration into account therefore reduces any apparent positive effects of disfluencies, and reveals previously obscured negative effects. Also, according to Shriberg (1995), the vast majority of repetitions are so-called "retrospective" repetitions (Heike, 1981), in which the initial word(s) are disfluent, but the final word resumes fluent speech. Our results fit nicely with this hypothesis, since final repetitions have no significant effect in our combined model, while non-final repetitions incur a penalty.…”

Section: Disfluenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which words are hard to recognize? Prosodic, lexical, and disfluency factors that increase speech recognition error rates

Goldwater

Jurafsky

Manning

2010

Speech Communication

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT AbstractDespite years of speech recognition research, little is known about which words tend to be misrecognized and why. Previous work has shown that errors increase for infrequent words, short words, and very loud or fast speech, but many other presumed causes of error (e.g., nearby disfluencies, turn-initial words, phonetic neighborhood density) have never been carefully tested. The reasons for the huge differences found in error rates between speakers also remain largely mysterious.Using a mixed-effects regression model, we investigate these and other factors by analyzing the errors of two state-of-the-art recognizers on conversational speech. Words with higher error rates include those with extreme prosodic characteristics, those occurring turninitially or as discourse markers, and doubly confusable pairs: acoustically similar words that also have similar language model probabilities. Words preceding disfluent interruption points (first repetition tokens and words before fragments) also have higher error rates. Finally, even after accounting for other factors, speaker differences cause enormous variance in error rates, suggesting that speaker error rate vari ance is not fully explained by differences in word choice, fluency, or prosodic characteristics. We also propose that doubly confusable pairs, rather than high neighborhood density, may better explain phonetic neighborhood errors in human speech processing.

show abstract

A Content-Processing View of Hesitation Phenomena

Cited by 67 publications

References 8 publications

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

Fluency and Disfluency

Which words are hard to recognize? Prosodic, lexical, and disfluency factors that increase speech recognition error rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About