Phoneme and Stress Programming Interact During Nonword Repetition Learning.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Phoneme and Stress Programming Interact During Nonword Repetition Learning.
Authors:	Meigh, Kimberly M.¹ kmmeigh@mail.wvu.edu, Cobun, Emily¹, Yunusova, Yana^2,3,4
Source:	Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Jul2020, Vol. 63 Issue 7, p2219-2228. 10p. 1 Diagram, 3 Charts, 2 Graphs.
Subject Terms:	Repetition (Learning process), Word recognition, Speech evaluation, Speech perception, Phoneme (Linguistics), Phonetics, Vowels
Abstract:	Purpose: Lexical stress and phoneme processes converge during phonological encoding, but the nature of the convergence has been debated. Stress patterns and phonemes may be integrated automatically and rigidly, resulting in a unified representation. Alternatively, stress and phoneme may be processed interactively based on sublexical contexts. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which the lexical stress and phoneme processing interact in a novel nonword learning paradigm. Method: Twenty-seven adults with typical speech skills were trained to produce nonwords with specific phonemes, syllables, and stress patterns (Set 1) to an accuracy criterion. Then, participants repeated nonwords that varied from Set 1 in syllable position (Set 2), phoneme sequence (Set 3), included new phonemes (Set 4), or had new phonemes and stress patterns (Set 5). Nonword productions were perceptually analyzed, and phoneme and stress errors were counted. Results: Participants’ produced Set 1 nonwords with few phonemic or stress errors after training; a similar number of both types of errors were produced when comparing Sets 2 and 3. Greater phoneme and stress errors were produced on nonwords from Sets 4 and 5 compared to Sets 1–3. The highest number of phonemic errors occurred in Set 4 nonwords. There was no difference in the number of stress errors produced on nonwords in Sets 4 and 5. Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that lexical stress and phoneme processing co-occurred and interacted during nonword productions. Trained stress patterns were learned during training; however, no evidence for a unified representation was observed. Negative interference was observed in nonwords with new phonemes and trained stress patterns, suggesting online phoneme processing may have dominated and interfered with the retrieval of stored metrical frames. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Purpose: Lexical stress and phoneme processes converge during phonological encoding, but the nature of the convergence has been debated. Stress patterns and phonemes may be integrated automatically and rigidly, resulting in a unified representation. Alternatively, stress and phoneme may be processed interactively based on sublexical contexts. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which the lexical stress and phoneme processing interact in a novel nonword learning paradigm. Method: Twenty-seven adults with typical speech skills were trained to produce nonwords with specific phonemes, syllables, and stress patterns (Set 1) to an accuracy criterion. Then, participants repeated nonwords that varied from Set 1 in syllable position (Set 2), phoneme sequence (Set 3), included new phonemes (Set 4), or had new phonemes and stress patterns (Set 5). Nonword productions were perceptually analyzed, and phoneme and stress errors were counted. Results: Participants’ produced Set 1 nonwords with few phonemic or stress errors after training; a similar number of both types of errors were produced when comparing Sets 2 and 3. Greater phoneme and stress errors were produced on nonwords from Sets 4 and 5 compared to Sets 1–3. The highest number of phonemic errors occurred in Set 4 nonwords. There was no difference in the number of stress errors produced on nonwords in Sets 4 and 5. Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that lexical stress and phoneme processing co-occurred and interacted during nonword productions. Trained stress patterns were learned during training; however, no evidence for a unified representation was observed. Negative interference was observed in nonwords with new phonemes and trained stress patterns, suggesting online phoneme processing may have dominated and interfered with the retrieval of stored metrical frames. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10924388
DOI:	10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00262