Effects of Varying Latencies in the Stimulus-Response Paradigm of Speech Therapy 1

Abstract

Effects of varying latencies upon articulatory productions in the stimulus-response paradigm were studied. Zero latency was compared to latency equal to stimuli and to latency with silent rehearsal of muscular movements. 30 children with misarticulated /r/ from kindergarten, first, and second grades participated as Ss in each of 3 latency conditions. Stimulus /ra/ was recorded on tape to provide 30 stimulations per S. Tape I contained stimuli with no latency; Tape II had stimuli with latency; and Tape III contained stimuli with latency and conditioning for muscular practice. Responses 1, 10, 20, and 30 of each S were judged. Only the responses following zero latency yielded significantly improved reponses after 30 stimulus-response trials. No significant differences were found among conditions after 30 trials. When change scores between Trials 1 and 30 were compared, the zero-latency condition was significantly better than the latency condition. When individuals were studied, however, some improved under a given condition whereas others did not or may even have regressed. It appears desirable to continue to use the stimulus-response method with latencies adapted to the individual S.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ammons

R. B.

, & Ammons

C. H.

Quick Test (QT): provisional manual. Psychol. Rep., 1966, 11, 111–161. (Monogr. Suppl. 1–V2)

Berry

M. F.

, & Eisenson

Speech disorders: principles and practices of therapy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956.

Carrell

J. A.

Disorders of articulation. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Curtis

J. F.

Disorders of articulation. In Johnson (Ed.), Speech handicapped school children. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Pp. 111–174.

Ebbinghaus

(1885) Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College, 1913.

Eigenberg

S. R.

The relationship between reflection-impulsivity dimension and phonemic discrimination of children with misarticulations. Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State Univer., 1967.

Flenner

C. F.

A comparative study of children s immediate and latent imitation of Spanish phrases. Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State Univer., 1971.

Hovland

C. I.

Experimental studies in rote-learning theory: II. Reminiscence with varying speeds of syllable presentation. J. exp. Psychol, 1938, 22, 338–353.

Hull

M. E.

Anticipatory speech responses in children with articulation defects. J. Speech hear. Disord., 1948, 13, 268–272.

10.

Irwin

R. B.

, Speech and hearing therapy: clinical and educational principles and practices. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Stanwix House, 1969.

11.

Irwin

R. B.

, & Abbate

M. S.

The Ohio Tests of Articulation and Perception of Sounds, OTAPS. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Stanwix House, 1973.

12.

Locke

J. L.

The child's acquisition of phonetic behavior. Acta Symbolica, 1971, 2, 28–32.

13.

Milisen

A rationale for articulation disorders. J. Speech hear. Disord., 1954, 4, 5–17. (Monogr. Suppl.)

14.

Romans

E. F.

, & Milisen

Effect of latency between stimulation and response and reproduction of sounds. J. Speech. hear. Disord., 1954, 4, 71–78 (Monogr Suppl.)

15.

Schlosberg

An inexpensive memory drum. J. exp. Psychol., 1941, 29, 161–163.

16.

Smith

C. R.

Articulation problems and ability to store and process stimuli. J. Speech hear. Res., 1967, 10, 348–353.

17.

Travis

L. E.

Speech pathology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1931.

18.

Van Riper

Speech correction. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

19.

Webb

C. E.

, & Siegenthaler

B. M.

Comparison of aural stimulation methods for teaching speech sounds. J. Speech hear. Disord., 1957, 22, 264–270.

20.

Winer

B. J.

Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.