scholarly journals Examining group differences in between-participant variability in non-native speech sound learning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Fuhrmeister
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Complete Picture ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Vowel Context ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Native Speech ◽  
Sound Learning

AbstractMany studies on non-native speech sound learning report a large amount of between-participant variability. This variability allows us to ask interesting questions about non-native speech sound learning, such as whether certain training paradigms give rise to more or less between-participant variability. This study presents a reanalysis of Fuhrmeister and Myers (Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 82(4), 2049-2065, 2020) and tests whether different types of phonetic training lead to group differences in between-participant variability. The original study trained participants on a non-native speech sound contrast in two different phonological (vowel) contexts and tested for differences in means between a group that received blocked training (one vowel context at a time) and interleaved training (vowel contexts were randomized). No statistically significant differences in means were found between the two groups in the original study on a discrimination test (a same-different judgment). However, the current reanalysis tested group differences in between-participant variability and found greater variability in the blocked training group immediately after training because this group had a larger proportion of participants with higher-than-average scores. After a period of offline consolidation, this group difference in variability decreased substantially. This suggests that the type and difficulty of phonetic training (blocked vs. interleaved) may initially give rise to differences in between-participant variability, but offline consolidation may attenuate that variability and have an equalizing effect across participants. This reanalysis supports the view that examining between-participant variability in addition to means when analyzing data can give us a more complete picture of the effects being tested.

Exploration-Stage Implementation Variation

2014 ◽  
Vol 222 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Romney ◽  
Nathaniel Israel ◽  
Danijela Zlatevski
Keyword(s):  
Parent Training ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Triple P ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Parent Training Program ◽  
A Site ◽  
The Cost

The present study examines the effect of agency-level implementation variation on the cost-effectiveness of an evidence-based parent training program (Positive Parenting Program: “Triple P”). Staff from six community-based agencies participated in a five-day training to prepare them to deliver a 12-week Triple P parent training group to caregivers. Prior to the training, administrators and staff from four of the agencies completed a site readiness process intended to prepare them for the implementation demands of successfully delivering the group, while the other two agencies did not complete the process. Following the delivery of each agency’s first Triple P group, the graduation rate and average cost per class graduate were calculated. The average cost-per-graduate was over seven times higher for the two agencies that had not completed the readiness process than for the four completing agencies ($7,811 vs. $1,052). The contrast in costs was due to high participant attrition in the Triple P groups delivered by the two agencies that did not complete the readiness process. The odds of Triple P participants graduating were 12.2 times greater for those in groups run by sites that had completed the readiness process. This differential attrition was not accounted for by between-group differences in participant characteristics at pretest. While the natural design of this study limits the ability to empirically test all alternative explanations, these findings indicate a striking cost savings for sites completing the readiness process and support the thoughtful application of readiness procedures in the early stages of an implementation initiative.

Early Spelling Acquisition: Does Writing Really Beat the Computer?

1992 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Vaughn ◽  
Jeanne Shay Schumm ◽  
Jane Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Primary Grade ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Spelling Acquisition ◽  
Instructional Activity ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Based Instruction

This research evaluated the efficacy of handwriting, letter tiles, and computer-based instruction on the early spelling acquisition of normal achieving (NLD) and learning disabled (LD) elementary students. The study replicated and extended the Cunningham and Stanovich (1990) study. Forty-eight primary-grade students (24 non-learning disabled; 24 learning disabled) received spelling training under three experimental conditions that involved different types of instructional activity: writing, sorting letter tiles, or typing on the computer. Results indicated no significant differences between the LD and NLD groups on words spelled correctly for any of the three conditions. Since the number of spelling words learned was low across conditions and groups, the number of correctly learned bigrams was examined. No within-group differences emerged for condition (writing, tile, computer); however, significant differences between the groups were found on number of bigrams learned for writing, tile, and computer, with the NLD group outperforming the LD group on all three conditions. Statistically significant time effects for bigrams were also noted for all three conditions. Unlike the Cunningham and Stanovich (1990) study, results did not replicate the superiority of the handwriting condition for the NLD group, nor was the handwriting condition found to be significantly more effective for the LD group.

scholarly journals Treating Children With Speech Sound Disorders: Development of a Tangible Artefact Prototype

10.2196/13861 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. e13861
Author(s):  
Joaquim Santos ◽  
Mário Vairinhos ◽  
Luis M T Jesus
Keyword(s):  
Serious Games ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Tangible Interaction ◽  
Tangible User Interface ◽  
Clear Pattern ◽  
Speech Sound Disorders ◽  
Ethnographic Approach ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Traditional Game

Background A prototype of a tangible user interface (TUI) for a fishing game, which is intended to be used by children with speech sound disorders (SSD), speech and language therapists (SLTs), and kindergarten teachers and assistants (KTAs) and parents alike, has been developed and tested. Objective The aim of this study was to answer the following question: How can TUIs be used as a tool to help in interventions for children with SSD? Methods To obtain feedback and to ensure that the prototype was being developed according to the needs of the identified target users, an exploratory test was prepared and carried out. During this test using an ethnographic approach, an observation grid, a semistructured questionnaire, and interviews were used to gather data. A total of 4 different types of stakeholders (sample size of 10) tested the prototype: 2 SLTs, 2 KTAs, and 6 children. Results The analysis of quantitative and qualitative data revealed that the prototype addresses the existing needs of SLTs and KTAs, and it revealed that 5 out of 6 (83%) children enjoyed the activity. Results also revealed a high replay value, with all children saying they would play more. Conclusions Serious games and tangible interaction for learning and problem solving serve both teachers and children, as children enjoy playing, and, through a playful approach, learning is facilitated. A clear pattern was observed: Children enjoyed playing, and numerous valid indicators showed the transposition of the traditional game into the TUI artefact was successful. The game is varied and rich enough to be attractive and fun. There is a clear need and interest in similar objects from SLTs and educators. However, the process should be even more iterative, with a multidisciplinary team, and all end users should be able to participate as co-designers.

scholarly journals Functional MRI of Native and Non-native Speech Sound Production in Sequential German-English Bilinguals

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Treutler ◽  
Peter Sörös
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Sound Production ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
English Vowels ◽  
Primary Sensorimotor Cortex ◽  
Native Speech ◽  
Bilingualism And Multilingualism

Bilingualism and multilingualism are highly prevalent. Non-invasive brain imaging has been used to study the neural correlates of native and non-native speech and language production, mainly on the lexical and syntactic level. Here, we acquired continuous fast event-related FMRI during visually cued overt production of exclusively German and English vowels and syllables. We analyzed data from 13 university students, native speakers of German and sequential English bilinguals. The production of non-native English sounds was associated with increased activity of the left primary sensorimotor cortex, bilateral cerebellar hemispheres (lobule VI), left inferior frontal gyrus, and left anterior insula compared to native German sounds. The contrast German > English sounds was not statistically significant. Our results emphasize that the production of non-native speech requires additional neural resources already on a basic phonological level in sequential bilinguals.

Native and non-native speech sound processing and the neural mismatch responses: A longitudinal study on classroom-based foreign language learning

2015 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 94-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea B. Jost ◽  
Aleksandra K. Eberhard-Moscicka ◽  
Georgette Pleisch ◽  
Veronica Heusser ◽  
Daniel Brandeis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Foreign Language Learning ◽  
Sound Processing ◽  
Native Speech
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document