No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Parkinson’s disease and the effect of lexical factors on vowel articulation
2.A. Neel, “Vowel space characteristics and vowel identification accuracy,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 51, 574–585 (2008).
3.J. Liss, S. Spitzer, J. Caviness, C. Adler, and B. Edwards, “Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 2457–2466 (1988).
4.G. Weismer, J. Jeng, J. Laures, R. Kent, and J. Kent, “Acoustic and intelligibility characteristics of sentence production in neurogenic speech disorders,” Folia Phoniatr Logop 53, 1–18 (2001).
6.R. Wright, “Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation,” in Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI, edited by J. Local, R. Ogden, and R. Temple (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004), pp. 26–50.
8.B. Munson, “Lexical access, lexical representation, and vowel production,” in Laboratory Phonology IX, edited by J. Cole and J. S. Haulde (Mouton de Gruyter, New York, 2007), pp. 201–228.
9.P. J. Watson and B. Munson, “A comparison of vowel acoustics between older and younger adults,” Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Phonetic Sciences (University of Saarland, Saarbrucken, Germany, 2007).
10.M. Ullman, “A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model,” Nat. Neurosci. 2, 717–726 (2001).
11.J. Booth, L. Wood, D. Lu, J. Houk, and T. Bitan, “The role of the basal ganglia and cerebellum in language processing,” Brain Res. 1133, 136–144 (2007).
12.M. Tettamanti, A. Moro, C. Messa, R. Moresco, G. Rizzo, A. Carpinelli, M. Matarrese, F. Fazio, and D. Perani, “Basal ganglia and language: phonology modulates dopaminergic release,” NeuroReport 16, 397–401 (2005).
13.Y. Abdullaev and K. Melnichuk, “Cognitive operations in the human caudate nucleus,” Neurosci. Lett. 234, 151–155 (1997).
14.K. Tjaden and G. E. Wilding, “Rate and loudness manipulations in dysarthria: Acoustic and perceptual findings,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47, 766–783 (2004).
15.M. Hoehn and M. Yahr, “Parkinsonism: Onset, progression, and mortality,” Neurology 17, 427–442 (1967).
17.As previously reported in Eq. (8), the neighborhood densities of the stimuli in Eq. (7) were described incorrectly. For additional details on the correct description of these stimuli, see Eq. (8).
18.P. Boersma and W. Weenik, PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.4.30) (Institute of Phonetic Sciences, Amsterdam, 2005).
19.S. Moon and B. Lindblom, “Interactions between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96, 40–55 (1994).
20.P. Davidson, D. Anaki, J. Satin-Cyr, T. Chow, and M. Moscovitch, “Exploring recognition memory deficit in Parkinson’s disease: Estimates of recollection versus familiarity,” Brain 129, 1768–1779 (2006).
Article metrics loading...
Lexical factors (i.e., word frequency and phonological neighborhood density) influence speech perception and production. It is unknown if these factors are affected by Parkinson’s disease (PD). Ten men with PD and ten healthy men read CVC words (varying orthogonally for word frequency and density) aloud while audio recorded. Acoustic analysis was performed on duration and Bark-scaled F1-F2 values of the vowels contained in the words. Vowel space was larger for low-frequency words from dense neighborhoods than from sparse ones for both groups. However, the participants with PD did not show an effect of density on dispersion for high-frequency words.
Full text loading...
Most read this month