The Role of Instructions in Motor Learning of Oral Versus Nasalized Speech Targets.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	The Role of Instructions in Motor Learning of Oral Versus Nasalized Speech Targets.
Authors:	Perta, Karen¹ karenperta@gmail.com, Bae, Youkyung², Vuolo, Janet², Bressmann, Tim³, Fox, Robert²
Source:	Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Nov2023, Vol. 66 Issue 11, p4398-4413. 16p.
Subject Terms:	Speech perception, Auditory perception, Learning, Motor ability, Physiological aspects of speech, Analysis of variance, Multivariate analysis, Human voice, Descriptive statistics, Data analysis software
Abstract:	Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate how general, implicit instructions with auditory-perceptual emphasis; specific, explicit instructions with biomechanical focus; or both affect learning of oral–nasal balance control in speech. Method: Thirty healthy, vocally untrained participants were assigned to one of three instructional groups (i.e., implicit, explicit, and integrated) and learned to produce oral versus nasalized vowel-, syllable-, and phrase-level targets during once-weekly sessions over 4 weeks. Learning gains and performance variability were analyzed using nasometry. Results: We observed a significant main effect of instruction type on learning gains at phrase level (p = .016). Specifically, the integrated group (M = 59.8%) significantly outperformed the explicit group (M = 37.9%) and numerically outperformed the implicit group (M = 45.1%). For nasalized phrase targets, results revealed a significant main effect of instruction type on performance variability (p = .042), but pairwise comparisons between instruction groups were not significant. Conclusions: The integration of implicit processes via auditory-perceptual modeling and explicit processes via relevant biomechanical directives resulted in larger motor learning gains, especially at higher levels of task complexity (i.e., phrase) compared to providing implicit or explicit instruction alone. The higher performance variability (i.e., less stable productions) that was sometimes induced by explicit instruction did not negatively impact learning when integrated with implicit instruction. Clinical implications for speech/voice therapy models are discussed. [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: The purpose of this study was to investigate how general, implicit instructions with auditory-perceptual emphasis; specific, explicit instructions with biomechanical focus; or both affect learning of oral–nasal balance control in speech. Method: Thirty healthy, vocally untrained participants were assigned to one of three instructional groups (i.e., implicit, explicit, and integrated) and learned to produce oral versus nasalized vowel-, syllable-, and phrase-level targets during once-weekly sessions over 4 weeks. Learning gains and performance variability were analyzed using nasometry. Results: We observed a significant main effect of instruction type on learning gains at phrase level (p = .016). Specifically, the integrated group (M = 59.8%) significantly outperformed the explicit group (M = 37.9%) and numerically outperformed the implicit group (M = 45.1%). For nasalized phrase targets, results revealed a significant main effect of instruction type on performance variability (p = .042), but pairwise comparisons between instruction groups were not significant. Conclusions: The integration of implicit processes via auditory-perceptual modeling and explicit processes via relevant biomechanical directives resulted in larger motor learning gains, especially at higher levels of task complexity (i.e., phrase) compared to providing implicit or explicit instruction alone. The higher performance variability (i.e., less stable productions) that was sometimes induced by explicit instruction did not negatively impact learning when integrated with implicit instruction. Clinical implications for speech/voice therapy models are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10924388
DOI:	10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00267