Foreign accent syndrome and force of articulation

Scheer, Fennetta van der; Jonkers, Roel; Gilbers, Dicky

doi:10.1080/02687038.2013.866210

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All the speech characteristics in Table 2 have been reported for patients with neurogenic FAS as well. It seems that in patients considered as psychogenic, vowels are more often affected than consonants and this also seems to hold for neurogenic patients (Ingram et al, 1992 ; Miller et al, 2006 ; Katz et al, 2008 ; Van der Scheer et al, 2014 ). Moreover, the nature of the changes is different for vowels and consonants: consonants are mainly affected by substitutions, omissions and additions, whereas errors against vowels mostly consist of substitution errors, vowel lengthening, and additions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Foreign Accent Syndrome As a Psychogenic Disorder: A Review

Keulen

Verhoeven

Witte

et al. 2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the majority of cases published between 1907 and 2014, FAS is due to a neurogenic etiology. Only a few reports about FAS with an assumed psychogenic origin have been published. The present article discusses the findings of a careful database search on psychogenic FAS. This review may be particularly relevant as it is the first to analyze the salient features of psychogenic FAS cases to date. This article hopes to pave the way for the view that psychogenic FAS is a cognate of neurogenic FAS. It is felt that this variant of FAS may have been underreported, as most of the psychogenic cases have been published after the turn of the century. This review may improve the diagnosis of the syndrome in clinical practice and highlights the importance of recognizing psychogenic FAS as an independent taxonomic entity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Foreign Accent Syndrome As a Psychogenic Disorder: A Review

Keulen

Verhoeven

Witte

et al. 2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More specifically, we propose a method of assessing relative orderings of acoustic emotion cues in terms of salience by ordering them in a way that is reminiscent of the differences in cue weighting for the recognition of phonemes across languages (see e.g., Broersma, 2005 , 2010 ; Fitch, Halwes, Erickson, & Liberman, 1980 ; Sinnott & Saporita, 2000 ) and rankings in Optimality Theory ( Prince & Smolensky, 1993/2002/2004 ). These cues are part of the Force of Articulation Model ( Gilbers, Jonkers, Van der Scheer, & Feiken, 2013 ; Van der Scheer, Jonkers, & Gilbers, 2014 ), which encompasses a wide array of both stereotypical phonetic characteristics of high-arousal speech (e.g., higher pitch and wider pitch range) and more subtle indicators of force of articulation (e.g., number of dominant pitches in a pitch histogram). The advancement this approach brings to the field is that it allows identification of different listener groups’ different biases in auditory perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normal-Hearing Listeners’ and Cochlear Implant Users’ Perception of Pitch Cues in Emotional Speech

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In cochlear implants (CIs), acoustic speech cues, especially for pitch, are delivered in a degraded form. This study’s aim is to assess whether due to degraded pitch cues, normal-hearing listeners and CI users employ different perceptual strategies to recognize vocal emotions, and, if so, how these differ. Voice actors were recorded pronouncing a nonce word in four different emotions: anger, sadness, joy, and relief. These recordings’ pitch cues were phonetically analyzed. The recordings were used to test 20 normal-hearing listeners’ and 20 CI users’ emotion recognition. In congruence with previous studies, high-arousal emotions had a higher mean pitch, wider pitch range, and more dominant pitches than low-arousal emotions. Regarding pitch, speakers did not differentiate emotions based on valence but on arousal. Normal-hearing listeners outperformed CI users in emotion recognition, even when presented with CI simulated stimuli. However, only normal-hearing listeners recognized one particular actor’s emotions worse than the other actors’. The groups behaved differently when presented with similar input, showing that they had to employ differing strategies. Considering the respective speaker’s deviating pronunciation, it appears that for normal-hearing listeners, mean pitch is a more salient cue than pitch range, whereas CI users are biased toward pitch range cues.

show abstract

“…Exclusion criteria included apparent aphasia (i.e., cases with language symptoms other than speech motor symptoms lasting longer than 3 months) and poor image resolution. Based on these criteria, we included 24 papers describing 25 cases of neurogenic FAS without aphasia in our analysis ( Abel et al, 2009 , Berthier et al, 1991 , Gurd et al, 1988 , Takayama et al, 1993 , Sakurai et al, 2015 , Tran and Mills, 2013 , Keulen et al, 2017 , Nakano et al, 1996 , Fridriksson et al, 2005 , Tani et al, 2002 , Ryalls and Whiteside, 2006 , Seliger et al, 1992 , Gurd et al, 2001 , Avila et al, 2004 , Marien et al, 2006 , Scott et al, 2006 , Verhoeven and Mariën, 2010 , Akhlaghi et al, 2011 , Bhandari, 2011 , van der Scheer et al, 2014 , Moreno-Torres et al, 2013 , Tomasino et al, 2013 ) ( Fig. 1 ; Table 1 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%