noise on speech intelligibility in dysarthria. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 28(10), 785–795.
40 Liss, J. M., Spitzer, S., Caviness, J. N., & Adler, C. (2002). The effects of familiarization on intelligibility and lexical segmentation in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(6), 3022–3030.
41 McAuliffe, M. J., Gibson, E. M., Kerr, S. E., Anderson, T., & LaShell, P. J. (2013). Vocabulary influences older and younger listeners’ processing of dysarthric speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(2), 1358–1368.
42 McLeod, S., & Crowe, K. (2018). Children’s consonant acquisition in 27 languages: A cross‐linguistic review. American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology, 27(4), 1546–1571.
43 McLeod, S., Crowe, K., & Shahaeian, A. (2015). Intelligibility in Context Scale: Normative and validation data for English‐speaking preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46(3), 266–276.
44 McLeod, S., Harrison, L. J., & McCormack, J. (2012). The Intelligibility in Context Scale: Validity and reliability of a subjective rating measure. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 55(2), 648–656.
45 Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 329–335.
46 Morris, S. R., Wilcox, K. A., & Schooling, T. L. (1995). The preschool speech intelligibility measure. American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology, 4, 22–28.
47 Natzke, P., Sakash, A., Mahr, T., & Hustad, K.C. (2020). Measuring speech production development in children with cerebral palsy between 6 and 8 years of age: Relationships among measures. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 51, 882–896.
48 Pardo, J. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 2382–2393.
49 Pennington, L., Roelant, E., Thompson, V., Robson, S., Steen, N., & Miller, N. (2013). Intensive dysarthria therapy for younger children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 55(5), 464–471. doi:10.1111/dmcn.12098
50 Rice, M. L., Smolik, F., Perpich, D., Thompson, T., Rytting, N., & Blossom, M. (2010). Mean length of utterance levels in 6‐month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53(2), 333–349. doi:10.1044/1092‐4388(2009/08‐0183)
51 Sander, E. K. (1972). When are speech sounds learned? Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 55–63.
52 Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J., & Bird, A. (1990a). The Iowa articulation norms project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 779–798.
53 Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E., & Bird, A. (1990b). The Iowa articulation norms project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 779–798.
54 Tikofsky, R. S., & Tikofsky, R. P. (1964). Intelligibility as a measure of dysarthric speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 7, 325–333.
55 Weismer, G. (2008). Speech intelligibility. In M. J. Ball, M. R. Perkins, N. Muller, & S. Howard (Eds.), The handbook of clinical linguistics (pp. 568–582). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
56 Weismer, G., & Laures, J. S. (2002). Direct magnitude estimates of speech intelligibility in dysarthria: Effects of a chosen standard. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45(3), 421–433.
57 Weismer, G., & Martin, R. (1992). Acoustic and perceptual approaches to the study of intelligibility. In R. Kent (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders (pp. 67–118). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
58 Weiss, C. E. (1982). Weiss intelligibility test. Tigard, OR: CC Publications.
59 Whitehill, T. L. (2002). Assessing intelligibility in speakers with cleft palate: A critical review of the literature [meta‐analysis]. The Cleft Palate‐Craniofacial Journal: Official Publication of the American Cleft Palate‐Craniofacial Association, 39(1), 50–58. doi:10.1597/1545‐1569(2002)039<0050:AIISWC>2.0.CO;2
60 Yoder, P. J., Woynaroski, T., & Camarata, S. (2016). Measuring speech comprehensibility in students with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 460–467. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR‐S‐15‐0149
61 Yoho, S. E., & Borrie, S. A. (2018). Combining degradations: The effect of background noise on intelligibility of disordered speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(1), 281–286.
62 Yorkston, K., & Beukelman, D. (1978). A comparison of techniques for measuring intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 11, 499–512.
63 Yorkston, K., & Beukelman, D. (1980). A clinician‐judged technique for quantifying dysarthric speech based on single‐word intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 15–31.
64 Yorkston, K., Beukelman, D., & Tice, R. (1996). Sentence intelligibility test. Lincoln, NE: Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital. Retrieved from https://www.madonna.org/institute/software
65 Yorkston, K., Beukelman, D., & Traynor, C. (1984). Assessment of intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Austin, TX: Pro‐Ed.
66 Yorkston, K., Beukelman, D. R., Strand, E., & Bell, K. (1999). Management of motor speech disorders in children and adults (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro‐Ed.
5 Genetic Syndromes and Communication Disorders
VESNA STOJANOVIK
University of Reading, UK
5.1 Why Study Genetic Syndromes?
A syndrome is defined as the presence of multiple anomalies in the same individual with all of those anomalies having a single cause. Different motivations have driven the study and research into genetic syndromes. One strong motivation has been to obtain as much in‐depth knowledge as possible about the behavioral manifestations of a specific genetic syndrome, in order to develop better understanding of the condition and inform diagnosis and intervention. Another reason for studying genetic syndromes (the focus of this chapter) has been the potential contribution that knowledge about genetic syndromes can make to advancing theoretical debates on the role of general cognitive mechanisms for language acquisition. This is because different cognitive skills can sometimes be dissociated, resulting in neurocognitive profiles characterized by relative strengths and weaknesses. With the second reason in mind, the study of genetic syndromes has informed debates about the potential dissociability of language (primarily grammar) from other cognitive skills for the past few decades. According to the Modularity of Mind hypothesis (Fodor, 1983), many of the processes involved in language comprehension are undertaken by special neural systems called modules, whose main feature is informational encapsulation, which means they only have access to certain types of information. For example, a breakdown in the visual system should not affect a person’s processing of tense marking morphology. According to this view, the modular system observed in the adult end state is also present in the infant start state. This view has been challenged, one of the challenges being that modules are not specified innately and that the mind becomes modularized in the process of development under the influence of the environment (Karmiloff‐Smith, 1994, 1998). This view is known as neuro‐constructivism. Developmental disorders provide a naturalistic way of testing the relation between the biological (and psychological) basis of language and the biological (and psychological) basis of other cognitive or neural systems (Marcus & Rabagliati, 2006).
A related issue, which has featured prominently in debates about modularity, is whether cognitive development, including language, in individuals with genetic syndromes follows a developmental trajectory