Perceptual comparisons of adolescent stutterers' and nonstutterers' fluent speech

Numerous investigators have reported that listeners are able to perceptually differentiate adult stutterers' and nonstutterers' fluent speech productions. However, findings from similar studies with children ranging in age from 3 to 9 yr have indicated that perceptual discrimination of child stutterers is difficult. A logical extension of this line of investigation would be to determine when during maturation from childhood to adulthood stutterers' fluent speech becomes perceptibly different than nonstutterers'. Therefore, in this study similar fluent speech samples from seven 12–16-yr-old adolescent male stutterers and seven matched nonstutterers were analyzed perceptually in a paired stimulus paradigm by 15 sophisticated listeners. Individual subject analyses using signal detection theory revealed that five of the seven stutterers were discriminated. When averaged for subject group comparison, these findings indicated that listeners successfully discriminated between the fluent speech of the two groups. Therefore, the perceptual difference in fluent speech production reported previously for adults appears to be present by adolescence.     

The process of cognitive therapy: The first dysfunctional thought changes less than the last one

An observant cognitive therapy patient reported that the first dysfunctional thought elicited and treated in homework sessions was more resistant to change than later distorted thoughts. To determine whether this was due to the fact that this thought was elicited first, or to the fact that it was treated first, systematic data were collected from 9 patients in 48 sessions of cognitive therapy. In half of these sessions, dysfunctional thoughts were treated in the order they were elicited; in half of the sessions, they were treated in the reverse order. Results showed that the first dysfunctional thought elicited changed least; there was no effect of order of treatment. Several possible explanations of this finding are offered.     

Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design

Communicating with multiple addressees poses a problem for speakers: Each addressee necessarily comes to the conversation with a different perspective—different knowledge, different beliefs, and a distinct physical context. Despite the ubiquity of multiparty conversation in everyday life, little is known about the processes by which speakers design language in multiparty conversation. While prior evidence demonstrates that speakers design utterances to accommodate addressee knowledge in multiparty conversation, it is unknown if and how speakers encode and combine different types of perspective information. Here we test whether speakers encode the perspective of multiple addressees, and then simultaneously consider their knowledge and physical context during referential design in a three‐party conversation. Analyses of referential form—expression length, disfluency, and elaboration rate—in an interactive multiparty conversation demonstrate that speakers do take into consideration both addressee knowledge and physical context when designing utterances, consistent with a knowledge‐scene integration view. These findings point to an audience design process that takes as input multiple types of representations about the perspectives of multiple addressees, and that bases the informational content of the to‐be‐designed utterance on a combination of the perspectives of the intended addressees.     

Audience Design in Multiparty Conversation

How do speakers design what they say in order to communicate effectively with groups of addressees who vary in their background knowledge of the topic at hand? Prior findings indicate that when a speaker addresses a pair of listeners with discrepant knowledge, that speakers Aim Low, designing their utterances for the least knowledgeable of the two addressees. Here, we test the hypothesis that speakers will depart from an Aim Low approach in order to efficiently communicate with larger groups of interacting partners. Further, we ask whether the cognitive demands of tracking multiple conversational partners' perspectives places limitations on successful audience design. We find that speakers can successfully track information about what up to four of their partners do and do not know in conversation. When addressing groups of 3–4 addressees at once, speakers design language based on the combined knowledge of the group. These findings point to an audience design process that simultaneously represents the perspectives of multiple other individuals and combines these representations in order to design utterances that strike a balance between the different needs of the individuals within the group.