Three experiments investigated listeners' ability to detect disfluency in spontaneous speech. All employed gated word recognition with judgments of disfluency for spontaneous utterances containing disfluencies and for three kinds of fluent control utterances from the same six speakers: repetitions of corrected recordings of original disfluent items, spontaneous fluent utterances loosely matched in structure to the disfluent items, and repetitions of those spontaneous fluent items. In Experiment 1, 120 stimuli were word-level gated and presented to 20 subjects for word identification and for judgments on whether the utterance was about to become disfluent. Listeners were unable to predict disfluency reliably. New subjects (N = 20, 43) judged whether the same utterances had already become disfluent at each word gate in Experiment 2 or at each 35 ms gate in Experiment 3. Subjects reliably detected existing disfluencies during the first word gate after the interruption and before they recognized the word. Though more common around disfluencies than at similar points in controls, failures of word identification were not reliably associated with detection. Results are discussed in the light of computational models of disfluency detection.
BARD, E., SHILLCOCK, R., & ALTMANN, G. (1988). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception and Psychophysics, 44(5), 395–408.
2.
BEACH, C. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 644–663.
3.
BEAR, J., DOWDING, J., & SHRIBERG, E. (1992). Integrating multiple knowledge sources for detection and correction of repairs in human-computer dialog. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics.
4.
BLACKMER, E., & MITTON, J. (1991). Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 39, 173–194.
5.
CARBONELL, J., & HAYES, P. (1983). Recovery strategies for parsing extragrammatical language. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 9(3-4), 123–146.
6.
CONNINE, C., BLASKO, D., & HALL, M. (1991). Effects of subsequent sentence context in auditory word recognition—temporal and linguistic constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 81–94.
7.
COTTON, S., & GROSJEAN, F. (1984). The gating paradigm: A comparison of successive and individual presentation formats. Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 41–48.
8.
DARWIN, C. (1975). On the dynamic use of prosody in speech perception. In A. Cohen & S. Nooteboom (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception (pp. 178–193). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
9.
DUEZ, D. (1985). Perception of silent pauses in continuous speech. Language and Speech, 28, 377–389.
10.
DUEZ, D. (1993). Acoustic correlates of subjective pauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(1), 21–39.
11.
FOX TREE, J. (1995). The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 709–738.
12.
GROSJEAN, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics, 28, 267–283.
13.
GROSJEAN, F. (1985). The recognition of words after their acoustic offset: Evidence and implications. Perception and Psychophysics, 38(4), 299–310.
14.
HEEMAN, P., & ALLEN, J. (1994). Tagging speech repairs. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 295–302. Association for Computational Linguistics, Las Cruces, NM, U.S.A.
15.
HINDLE, D. (1983). Deterministic parsing of syntactic non-fluencies. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 123–128. Association for Computational Linguistics.
16.
HOWELL, P., & YOUNG, K. (1991). The use of prosody in highlighting alterations in repairs from unrestricted speech. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A(3), pp. 733–758.
17.
LANGER, H. (1990). Syntactic normalization of spontaneous speech. In Proceedings of COLING 90, pp. 180–183.
18.
LEHISTE, I., OLIVE, J., & STREETER, L. (1976). The role of duration in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60(5), 1199–1202.
19.
LEVELT, W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.
20.
LICKLEY, R. (1994). Detecting disfluency in spontaneous speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, U. K.
21.
LICKLEY, R. (1995). Missing disfluencies. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 192–195. Stockholm, Sweden.
22.
MARSLEN-WILSON, W., TYLER, L., WARREN, P., GRENIER, P., & LEE, C. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology Section A—Human Experimental Psychology, 1, 73–87.
23.
MARTIN, J., & STRANGE, W. (1968). The perception of hesitation in spontaneous speech. Perception and Psychophysics, 3(6), 427–438.
24.
NAKATANI, C., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1993). A speech-first model for repair detection and correction. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic, pp. 46–53.
25.
NAKATANI, C., & HIRSCHBERG, J. (1994). A corpus-based study of repair cues in spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1603–1616.
26.
PICKETT, J., & POLLACK, I. (1963). Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Effects of rate of utterance and duration of excerpt. Language and Speech, 6, 151–165.
27.
POLLACK, I., & PICKETT, J. (1963). The intelligibility of excerpts from conversation. Language and Speech, 6, 165–171.
28.
POLLACK, I., & PICKETT, J. (1964). Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Auditory versus structural context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 79–84.
29.
POSTMA, A., & KOLK, H. (1993). The covert repair hypothesis: Prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 472–487.
30.
PRICE, P., OSTENDORF, M., SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S., & FONG, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90(6), 2956–2970.
31.
PYNTE, J., & PRIEURE, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(1/2), 165–192.
32.
SCHAFER, J., CARTER, J., CLIFTON, C. J., & FRAZIER, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(1/2), 135–164.
33.
SCOTT, D. (1982). Duration as a cue to perception of a phrase boundary. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71(4), 996–1007.
34.
STIRLING, L., & WALES, R. (1996). Does prosody support or direct sentence processing?. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(1/2), 193–212.
35.
TYLER, L., & WARREN, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 638–657.
36.
TYLER, L., & WESSELS, J. (1983). Quantifying contextual contributions to word-recognition processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, pp. 409–420.
37.
TYLER, L., & WESSELS, J. (1985). Is gating an on-line task? Evidence from naming latency data. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, pp. 217–222.
38.
WINGFIELD, A. (1975). The intonation-syntax interaction: Prosodic features in perceptual processing of sentences. In A. Cohen & S. Nooteboom (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception (pp. 146–160). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
