Syllable frequency and syllable structure in apraxia of speech

Aichert, Ingrid; Ziegler, Wolfram

doi:10.1016/s0093-934x(03)00296-7

Cited by 141 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Levelt and Wheeldon found faster naming latencies for words consisting of high-frequency syllables compared with words containing low-frequency syllables when word frequency was controlled for. The obtained syllablefrequency effects therefore support the notion of a mental syllabary where syllables are stored separately from words (see also Aichert & Ziegler, 2004;Cholin, Levelt, & Schiller, 2006;Laganaro & Alario, 2006). Furthermore, Levelt and Wheeldon (1994) specifically found an effect of the second syllable's frequency, reporting that the "bulk of the syllable-frequency effect is due to the word-final syllable" (Levelt & Wheeldon, 1994, p. 260).…”

supporting

confidence: 69%

Planning and articulation in incremental word production: Syllable-frequency effects in English.

Cholin

Dell

Levelt

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the role of syllables during speech planning in English by measuring syllable-frequency effects. So far, syllable-frequency effects in English have not been reported. English has poorly defined syllable boundaries, and thus the syllable might not function as a prominent unit in English speech production. Speakers produced either monosyllabic (Experiment 1) or disyllabic (Experiment 2-4) pseudowords as quickly as possible in response to symbolic cues. Monosyllabic targets consisted of either high-or lowfrequency syllables, whereas disyllabic items contained either a 1st or 2nd syllable that was frequencymanipulated. Significant syllable-frequency effects were found in all experiments. Whereas previous findings for disyllables in Dutch and Spanish-languages with relatively clear syllable boundaries-showed effects of a frequency manipulation on 1st but not 2nd syllables, in our study English speakers were sensitive to the frequency of both syllables. We interpret this sensitivity as an indication that the production of English has more extensive planning scopes at the interface of phonetic encoding and articulation.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 69%

Planning and articulation in incremental word production: Syllable-frequency effects in English.

Cholin

Dell

Levelt

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In her neurolinguistic study, she obtained a significant frequency effect on segmental substitution errors and a syllable-frequency effect on non-word repetition performance in aphasics. Furthermore, Aichert and Ziegler (2004) found a syllable frequency effect in patients with apraxia of speech (but see Wilshire & Nespoulous, 2003;Howard & Smith, 2002).…”

Section: Evidence For the Mental Syllabary And Syllable Frequency Stumentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of syllable frequency in speech production

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the speech production model proposed by [Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, pp. 1-75.], syllables play a crucial role at the interface of phonological and phonetic encoding. At this interface, abstract phonological syllables are translated into phonetic syllables. It is assumed that this translation process is mediated by a so-called Mental Syllabary. Rather than constructing the motor programs for each syllable on-line, the mental syllabary is hypothesized to provide pre-compiled gestural scores for the articulators. In order to find evidence for such a repository, we investigated syllable-frequency effects: If the mental syllabary consists of retrievable representations corresponding to syllables, then the retrieval process should be sensitive to frequency differences. In a series of experiments using a symbol-position association learning task, we tested whether highfrequency syllables are retrieved and produced faster compared to low-frequency syllables. We found significant syllable frequency effects with monosyllabic pseudo-words and disyllabic pseudo-words in which the first syllable bore the frequency manipulation; no effect was found when the frequency manipulation was on the second syllable. The implications of these results for the theory of word form encoding at the interface of phonological and phonetic encoding; especially with respect to the access mechanisms to the mental syllabary in the speech production model by (Levelt et al.) are discussed. q

show abstract

“…They raised the controversial issue that phonemes are the most important units of speech production, and that effects of the phonological syllable could be attributed to confounding variables. Aichert and Ziegler's (2004) results neither confirmed nor contradicted this interpretation, because their word repetition experiment reporting syllable frequency effects in patients with apraxia of speech did not control for phoneme frequency. However, they confirmed the prediction of Varley and Whiteside (2001) that at the phonetic encoding level (Levelt et al, 1999) motor programs are provided for high frequency syllables.…”

Section: Grain Sizes: Syllable Dual Unit or Single Unitmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…It should be noted that behavioral findings are also able to contribute to the knowledge about the neuropsychology of sublexical word processing. That is, for instance, when acquired impairments of written (Stenneken, Conrad, Hutzler, Braun, & Jacobs, 2005) or spoken (Aichert & Ziegler, 2004;Laganaro, 2005;Stenneken, Bastiaanse, Huber, & Jacobs, 2005;Stenneken, Hofmann, & Jacobs, 2005) language are compared to unimpaired functioning. Conrad and Jacobs (2004), as well as Hutzler et al (2004) pointed out that the syllable frequency effect provides a challenge to future computational models of word recognition, as no current model is able to account for these findings because of the lack of data on syllabic units (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001;Grainger & Jacobs, 1996;Jacobs, Graf, & Kinder, 2003;Jacobs, Rey, Ziegler, & Grainger, 1998;Ziegler, Perry, & Coltheart, 2003;Zorzi, Houghton, & Butterworth, 1998; but see Ans, Carbonnel, & Valdois, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%