The effect of phonetic context on the dynamics of intrusions and reductions

Noggin Nodding: Head Movement Correlates With Increased Effort in Accelerating Speech Production Tasks

“…Gestural intrusion (co-constriction of the anti-phase articulator) was the most common type of error. Extending the results of Slis and Van Lieshout (2016) to coda alternation, most intrusive errors were produced with the TD articulator and the fewest with the lips. A model (M1) predicting error rate (combined across all types) by fixed effects of context and epoch and their interaction, with random intercepts by speaker and word pair, showed a significantly greater main effect for context ONSET ( t = 2.1 ∗ ) and CODA ( t = 3.0 ∗∗ ) alternation than for no alternation (SAME).…”

“…Kinematic studies of such sequences have confirmed this asymmetry (Mooshammer et al, 2018) and have shown that systematic alternation can lead to inappropriate suppression of the target constriction (a reduction error) or co-constriction of the non-targeted articulator (an intrusion), which in both cases may be partial or subphonemic (Pouplier, 2003; Goldstein et al, 2007). Kinematic studies of alternating sequences have also shown that more errors occur at higher production rates and that intrusion errors are more common (Goldstein et al, 2007; Slis and Van Lieshout, 2016).…”

“…An alternative view arises from kinematic studies of constriction variability (interpreted as gradient production errors) in repeated word pairs with alternating onsets conducted by Slis and Van Lieshout (2013, 2016). They report higher rates of tongue dorsum instrusion in onset alternation, especially in high (constrained) vowel contexts, relative to lower intrusion rates for tongue tip and lower lip constrictions, and more intrusions than reductions overall.…”

“…In this view, the fewer shared oscillatory components (articulators) utilized to achieve an articulatory target, the less susceptible it will be to such bias. Thus, because the lower lip apart from the jaw is uncoupled from the tongue, it “is better able to maintain linguistic goals and counteract pressure from coupling forces to stabilize coordination patterns” (Slis and Van Lieshout, 2016, p. 14).…”

Towards the Quantification of Peggy Babcock: Speech Errors and Their Position within the Word

“…it does not distinguish between active and passive articulators or alternating and nonalternating articulators. As was found by Slis and van Lieshout (2016) intrusions in the onset are more frequent for intruding dorsal gestures compared to lower lip gestures, but the delta method is not sensitive to the articulator involved (see Slis, 2018, for a discussion of error measures).…”