China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Principles of avoidance-reduction therapy
Published in Trudy Stewart, Stammering Resources for Adults and Teenagers, 2020
Many clients find it useful to understand the basic phonetic nature of sounds when learning about voluntary stammering. Discussing which sounds are easier and more difficult can be illuminating for PWS. A clinician knows that fricatives are easier to slide on due to their manner of production. However, plosives are more difficult, and therefore an easier onset or softer release may be recommended for use on these sounds. Initial vowels can be problematic for a PWS. In this instance it is suggested that a client slide on the first emphasised consonant in a word e.g. avvvvvoidance. However, some words may not allow for this strategy, so some flexibility is suggested, with sliding on vowels remaining as an option for the client.
Voice and Speech Production
Published in John C Watkinson, Raymond W Clarke, Terry M Jones, Vinidh Paleri, Nicholas White, Tim Woolford, Head & Neck Surgery Plastic Surgery, 2018
Paul Carding, Lesley Mathieson
In contrast, fricatives are continuant consonants (they can continue for a relatively long time). The main characteristic of fricatives is the air turbulent sound that is made by air ‘hissing’ through the close (but not complete) approximation of two articulators. Like plosives, fricatives have different places of articulation (see Table 60.1). Examples of English fricatives include f, z, and s.
Speech and its perception
Published in Stanley A. Gelfand, Hearing, 2017
The fricatives are distinguished by noise energy that continues for some time, generally lasting about 100 ms or more, and have been described in some detail (e.g., House and Fairbanks, 1953; Huges and Halle, 1956; Harris, 1958; Strevens, 1960; Heinz and Stevens, 1961; Jassem, 1965; Shadle, 1985; Behrens and Blumstein, 1988; Jongman et al., 2000). Several examples of the fricatives are shown in the spectrograms in Figure 14.9. The continuant noise of the fricatives is produced by directing air through a partial obstruction in the vocal tract so that the flow becomes turbulent. In addition, forcing the air flow against the backs of the front teeth constitutes a second noise source when the sibilant fricatives are produced.
A preliminary validation of a dynamic speech motor assessment for Swedish-speaking children with childhood apraxia of speech
Published in Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 2022
Susanne Rex, Anders Sand, Edythe Strand, Kristina Hansson, Anita McAllister
DYMTA-A comprises 55 words with early developing phonemes and syllable shapes in eight subtests. All words are judged regarding articulatory accuracy (correct production of the target, with accurate smooth coarticulatory transitions between sounds and syllables), vowel accuracy (age-related vowel production), and consistency (consistency across repeated trials of the same word). Twenty-two of the words are also scored with respect to prosody (word stress and tonal accent). The results on these four aspects constitute the respective subscores and the sum of these subscores comprises the total score (with a maximum of 407). DYMTA-B subtests include all Swedish phonemes, syllable shapes, and prosodic aspects, thus increasing the motor programming demands on speech movements, relative to DYMTA-A. DYMTA-B has nine subtests, each focusing on a feature or spatial-temporal aspect associated with characteristics of CAS. These include voiced-voiceless and stop-fricative contrast, speech movement transitions, and consonant clusters. The Swedish prosodic aspects are also addressed with respect to word stress and tonal word accent. DYMTA-B comprises 71 words and utterances all targeted with respect to consistency, 62 words targeted for articulatory accuracy, 68 words for vowel accuracy, and 24 words scored with respect to prosody, with a maximum total score of 461. In Table 1, we list the subtests of DYMTA-A and DYMTA-B, respectively. For a comprehensive overview of number of subscores and examples of words/utterances we refer to our previous study by Rex et al. [8].
The orofacial, oromotor, speech, and voice characteristics of adolescents in youth detention: a comparison of groups with and without prenatal alcohol exposure
Published in Speech, Language and Hearing, 2022
Natalie R. Kippin, Suze Leitão, Rochelle Watkins, Raewyn Mutch, Amy Finlay-Jones
A standard observational record sheet (Supplementary material) was used to record speech anomalies (e.g., articulation errors, stuttering) and voice anomalies (e.g., monotone, breathy) that were observed throughout the assessment; this was observational. A standardized norm-referenced speech and articulation assessment was not administered given that most participants were Aboriginal young peoples. In line with previous research that examined speech skills among individuals in justice populations (Sample, Montague, & Buffalo, 1989; Zinkus & Gottlieb, 1983), we did not consider phonological and articulation variations due to cultural and linguistic diversity as errors. For example, in home languages of Aboriginal peoples, interdental fricatives and affricates can be pronounced with voiced or voiceless stops, and consonant clusters, such as /st/ and /dr/ can be produced as /s/ and /d/, respectively (Butcher, 2008).
Effect of different types of speech sounds on viral transmissibility: a scoping review
Published in Speech, Language and Hearing, 2022
Fricatives. These types of consonants were investigated in 9 studies. Two studies of moderate evidence could not provide support that fricatives can generate more droplets or travel with a higher velocity than plosives (Abkarian et al., 2020; Abkarian & Stone, 2020). Similarly, one study of low evidence showed that the starting jets of the fricative /s/ were slower than those of the plosive /t/ (Tan et al., 2021). A study of moderate evidence with 56 participants observed that voiced and voiceless fricatives yielded the least aerosol particles compared to other types of consonant sounds (Asadi et al., 2020). Also, a paper with very low evidence supported that there were no apparent particles during the articulation of fricatives (Hamada et al., 2021). Finally, two studies found that fricatives can create a lot of droplets. Specifically, a study with moderate evidence found that speakers who produced the letters <f> and <s> among other noted high peak flow rates (Gupta et al., 2010). One study of very low evidence found that the fricative /θ/ generated a large number of droplets (Anfinrud et al., 2020).