Ssion that the person is stressing the wrong syllable (i.e.

Ssion that the person is stressing the wrong syllable (i.e. `-ming’ and `-phins’). The final speaker in figures 2 and 3 demonstrates a very different speech characteristic which clearly impacted on the rhythm metric, resulting in a considerably higher nPVIV result than for the other speakers. Speaker (d) had PD rather than ataxia, and presented with problems with segmental production, which resulted in her omitting all consonants and merging five separate syllables into oneTable 4. Group differences (control versus ataxic versus hypokinetic dysarthria) across rhythm metrics and other performance measures using the Kruskal?Wallis test. Significant results are marked in italic. RP5264 site measure DV DC V nPVI-V rPVI-C VarcoV p-value 0.645 0.920 0.094 0.655 0.929 0.437 measure VarcoC rPVI-VC nPVI-VC articulation rate no. of syllables perceptual rating p-value 0.944 0.676 0.212 0.499 0.010 0.Figure 2 shows the data of only one control speaker as it was not possible to present mean group performance in this format. The selection of this particular individual was based on the fact that she performed close to the group mean for the nPVI-V and in addition, showed the expected vowel duration pattern, i.e. vowels with strong beats were long (Tony knew you were lying in bed), and the remaining vowels were short. Exceptions to this pattern were the /i/ in `Tony’, where the inherent nature of the vowel did not allow for as much reduction as in the other syllables. In addition, the /1/ in `bed’ was longer than might be expected due to phrase-final lengthening. All control speakers consistently omitted the second syllable in `lying’, which was produced as a single syllable, i.e. . The comparison of this pattern with the disordered speakers highlights a number of differences. Speakers (b) and (c), who had ataxic dysarthria, clearly produce deviating vowel durations compared with the normal pattern by lengthening unstressed syllables (`you’ in speaker (b) and `Tony’ in speaker (c)), the latter actually leading to a reversal of the normal timing relationship for `Tony’. A slightly different version of timing shift can be found in the sequence `knew you were’. The two vowels in `you’ and `were’ in the control speaker were relatively similar, but there was a contrast between `knew’ and `you’, leading to a `long hort hort’ pattern. On the other hand, the lengthening of `you’ observed in speaker (b) reduced the contrast between(a)rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369:(b)(c)(d)Figure 3. Examples of articulatory deviations. (a) `Swimming with dolphins’–the speaker is equalizing the length of the vowels. (b) `I prefer’–the speaker has deleted most of the segments in the first syllable, leaving only the first consonant /p/. (c) `Accommodation’–deletion of first, third and fifth syllable, resulting in an abnormal production as `komdeish’. (d) `Tony knew you were lying in bed’–the speaker is fusing most of the utterance into one single word with no Torin 1 price recognizable consonants until the /n/ of `in’, resulting in an abnormally long vowel. (Online version in colour.)continuous vowel. This is a common problem in speakers with PD whose reduced speed and range of movement can cause stops and fricatives being replaced by approximants, or in severe cases being completely elided with only vowels remaining, as evidenced in the first part of speaker (d)’s utterance. Although the number of syllables could be identifiedTable 5. Results for rate, variability and perc.Ssion that the person is stressing the wrong syllable (i.e. `-ming’ and `-phins’). The final speaker in figures 2 and 3 demonstrates a very different speech characteristic which clearly impacted on the rhythm metric, resulting in a considerably higher nPVIV result than for the other speakers. Speaker (d) had PD rather than ataxia, and presented with problems with segmental production, which resulted in her omitting all consonants and merging five separate syllables into oneTable 4. Group differences (control versus ataxic versus hypokinetic dysarthria) across rhythm metrics and other performance measures using the Kruskal?Wallis test. Significant results are marked in italic. measure DV DC V nPVI-V rPVI-C VarcoV p-value 0.645 0.920 0.094 0.655 0.929 0.437 measure VarcoC rPVI-VC nPVI-VC articulation rate no. of syllables perceptual rating p-value 0.944 0.676 0.212 0.499 0.010 0.Figure 2 shows the data of only one control speaker as it was not possible to present mean group performance in this format. The selection of this particular individual was based on the fact that she performed close to the group mean for the nPVI-V and in addition, showed the expected vowel duration pattern, i.e. vowels with strong beats were long (Tony knew you were lying in bed), and the remaining vowels were short. Exceptions to this pattern were the /i/ in `Tony’, where the inherent nature of the vowel did not allow for as much reduction as in the other syllables. In addition, the /1/ in `bed’ was longer than might be expected due to phrase-final lengthening. All control speakers consistently omitted the second syllable in `lying’, which was produced as a single syllable, i.e. . The comparison of this pattern with the disordered speakers highlights a number of differences. Speakers (b) and (c), who had ataxic dysarthria, clearly produce deviating vowel durations compared with the normal pattern by lengthening unstressed syllables (`you’ in speaker (b) and `Tony’ in speaker (c)), the latter actually leading to a reversal of the normal timing relationship for `Tony’. A slightly different version of timing shift can be found in the sequence `knew you were’. The two vowels in `you’ and `were’ in the control speaker were relatively similar, but there was a contrast between `knew’ and `you’, leading to a `long hort hort’ pattern. On the other hand, the lengthening of `you’ observed in speaker (b) reduced the contrast between(a)rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369:(b)(c)(d)Figure 3. Examples of articulatory deviations. (a) `Swimming with dolphins’–the speaker is equalizing the length of the vowels. (b) `I prefer’–the speaker has deleted most of the segments in the first syllable, leaving only the first consonant /p/. (c) `Accommodation’–deletion of first, third and fifth syllable, resulting in an abnormal production as `komdeish’. (d) `Tony knew you were lying in bed’–the speaker is fusing most of the utterance into one single word with no recognizable consonants until the /n/ of `in’, resulting in an abnormally long vowel. (Online version in colour.)continuous vowel. This is a common problem in speakers with PD whose reduced speed and range of movement can cause stops and fricatives being replaced by approximants, or in severe cases being completely elided with only vowels remaining, as evidenced in the first part of speaker (d)’s utterance. Although the number of syllables could be identifiedTable 5. Results for rate, variability and perc.