Semantic and Phonemic Listener Confusions in a Case of Isolated Congenital Aglossia

Abstract

This article is the second in a series that examines the intelligibility of a person with congenital aglossia (PWCA). Specific factors examined in this study included (a) intelligibility for meaningful words versus nonsense words, (b) intelligibility for consonant-vowel-consonant words (CVCs) as a function of phonemic segment types, and (c) whether there is a correlation between intelligibility for these factors and the acoustic properties of the speech samples. Results revealed greater intelligibility for meaningful versus nonsense CVCs, greater intelligibility for back, low, and high-back versus front vowels embedded in CVCs, and greater intelligibility for productions as a function of phonemic variables, which demonstrated the following hierarchy: initial consonant > consonant vowel > vowel consonant > final consonant. Further results suggest that consonant recognition was consistently affected by “vowel context.” This suggests that movement sequencing appeared to be of importance for speech perception in productions of a PWCA.

Bilabial Substitution Patterns during Consonant Production in a Case of Congenital Aglossia

“…These results are consistent with findings by McMicken et al in a study investigating listener confusion of the intelligibility of a PwCA I as a function of semantic and phonemic variables [15]. In that investigation, researchers found: (1) there was a confusion of the alveolar stop /d/ for bilabial productions about 50% of the time; (2) while the /d/ was well recognized by listeners, it was acoustically different from the other sounds produced by the PwCA I; (3) the coefficient of /d/ regression was higher than that of typical speakers' /d/; and (4) that 30% of bilabial stops preceding the vowel /iy/ were perceived as alveolar stops.…”

“…There was no evidence of hyper-or hypo-nasality as a resonatory characteristic [14,15]. In oral-peripheral assessment, range of motion of jaw and lips demonstrated what would be considered as normal mobility.…”

“…However multiple consonant distortions were reported in this case. McMicken et al [14,15] reported an overall intelligibility from the 1986 AV tapes of PwCA I of vowels at 78.5% and initial consonants 77.3%, with considerably variability depending on context.…”

“…Only 11 cases have been reported internationally [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] since it was first described systematically by De Jussieu in 1718 [12] whose original paper was investigated and described by Salles et al in 2016 [13]. McMicken and her co-authors [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] have reported extensively on research from cinefluorographic films and audio-visual (AV) recordings collected in 1986 on a 16-year-old female PwCA. This research included perception of vowel production [14], perception of consonant production [15], and cinefluorographic examination of articulation [16], in addition to current re-examination of the PwCA, now in her 40s, with electropalatography [17], videoflourography of articulatory movements of pseudo tongue, hyoid and mandible [18], and speech and swallowing kinematics [19].…”

“…McMicken and her co-authors [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] have reported extensively on research from cinefluorographic films and audio-visual (AV) recordings collected in 1986 on a 16-year-old female PwCA. This research included perception of vowel production [14], perception of consonant production [15], and cinefluorographic examination of articulation [16], in addition to current re-examination of the PwCA, now in her 40s, with electropalatography [17], videoflourography of articulatory movements of pseudo tongue, hyoid and mandible [18], and speech and swallowing kinematics [19]. It should be noted that the PwCA was a co-author in previous articles and is currently the subject of this paper.…”