Individuals often modify speech characteristics to accommodate their listeners. In the present study, we investigate how speakers modify their speech in a dictation task and what this says about their beliefs with respect to the listener’s information processing limitations. To do so, we asked participants to either read a set of numbers aloud, or dictate numbers so that another person could write them down. Our results suggest that speech modification in this task was not related to individual differences in working memory capacity, and could represent speakers’ attempt to minimize working memory demands of the listener. This account is similar to minimal memory strategies, whereby individuals often try to minimize memory demands in cognitive tasks.
ArnoldJ. E.KahnJ. M.PancaniG. C. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 505–512.
2.
AshburnG.GordonA. (1981). Features of a simplified register in speech to elderly conversationalists. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8, 7–31.
3.
BallardD. H.HayhoeM. M.PookP. K.RaoR. P. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 723–742.
4.
BellA. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204.
5.
BradlowA. R.KrausN.HayesE. (2003). Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: Sentence perception in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 80–97.
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
CookeM.KingS.GarnierM.AubanelV. (2014). The listening talker: A review of human and algorithmic context-induced modifications of speech. Computer Speech & Language, 28, 543–571.
8.
CowanN. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51–57.
9.
De La PazS. (1999). Composing via dictation and speech recognition systems: Compensatory technology for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 173–182.
10.
GarnierM.HenrichN.DuboisD. (2010). Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 588–608.
MacArthurC. A.CavalierA. R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–58.
13.
MedimorecS.PavlikP. I.JrOlneyA.GraesserA. C.RiskoE. F. (2015). The language of instruction: Compensating for challenge in lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 971–990.
14.
PallantJ. F. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis with SPSS. New York, NY: McGrath Hill.
15.
Pelegrín-GarcíaD.SmitsB.BrunskogJ.JeongC. H. (2011). Vocal effort with changing talker-to-listener distance in different acoustic environments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129, 1981–1990.
16.
PichenyM. A.DurlachN. I.BraidaL. D. (1986). Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 29, 434–446.
17.
RantalaL. M.HakalaS.HolmqvistS.SalaE. (2015). Classroom noise and teachers’ voice production. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 1397–1406.
18.
RiskoE. F.DunnT. L. (2015). Storing information in-the-world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61–74.
19.
RiskoE. F.GilbertS. J. (2016). Cognitive Offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 676–688.
20.
SmiljanićR.BradlowA. R. (2005). Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1677–1688.
21.
SwertsM.GeluykensR. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech, 37, 21–43.
22.
ten BoschL.OostdijkN.BovesL. (2005). On temporal aspects of turn taking in conversational dialogues. Speech Communication, 47, 80–86.
23.
UnsworthN.EngleR. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114, 104–132.
24.
UnsworthN.HeitzR. P.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.
25.
WalkerE. J.RiskoE. F.KingstoneA. (2014). Fillers as signals: Evidence from a question–answering paradigm. Discourse Processes, 51, 264–286.
26.
WangY. T.NipI. S.GreenJ. R.KentR. D.KentJ. F.UllmanC. (2012). Accuracy of perceptual and acoustic methods for the detection of inspiratory loci in spontaneous speech. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1121–1128.
