Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

This article was downloaded by:[Macquarie University] [Macquarie University] On: 9 July 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 778261146] Publisher: Informa Healthcare Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713693308 A diagnostic marker for childhood apraxia of speech: the lexical stress ratio Lawrence D. Shriberg a; Thomas F. Campbell b; Heather B. Karlsson a; Roger L. Brown c; Jane L. Mcsweeny a; Connie J. Nadler a a Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. WI. USA b Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, PA. USA c Research Design and Statistics Unit, School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison. WI. USA

Online Publication Date: 01 October 2003 To cite this Article: Shriberg, Lawrence D., Campbell, Thomas F., Karlsson, Heather B., Brown, Roger L., Mcsweeny, Jane L. and Nadler, Connie J. , (2003) 'A diagnostic marker for childhood apraxia of speech: the lexical stress ratio', Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17:7, 549 - 574 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/0269920031000138123 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0269920031000138123

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. © Taylor and Francis 2007 Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 drs orsodnet:Lwec .Srbr,PoooyPoet asa Center, Waisman e-mail: USA. Project, 53705, WI Phonology Madison, Shriberg, Avenue, we Highland [email protected]; D. 1500 Wisconsin-Madison, Lawrence of University to: correspondence Address PHONETICS & LINGUISTICS CLINICAL rtto ftepeetfidns oehrwt nig rmohrstudies, speech other in Keywords deficit from praxis a findings of more with consequences inter- prosodic underlying were together control. parsimonious the in motor findings, speakers reflect A deficits they present stress. sAOS with that suggests the or lexical the of control of for motor pretation aspects speech findings representational 8 lower in phonological and (approximately whether deficits upper with scores was the consistent LSR (83 at question five of LSRs children end), second distributions six of each those the obtained at from Of scores the differed affirmative. of group’s sAOS was were with either posed extremes Findings question children provisional meet first SD. of not groups’ The scores with did (SD). investigator LSR delay who two speech the children having of whether participants remaining as as both classified 24 35 classified were or The were criteria from children sAOS. one the obtained for of met were Eleven criteria they speech. the word task of because quantifies bisyllabic apraxia stress few of sAOS, in that lexical study a a duration) (LSR) a only for The intensity, ratio referred to sAOS, construct. (frequency, stress Responses in control stress lexical forms. disorder motor of composite speech core correlates a this the acoustic is assess is that marker sAOS praxis is and inclusionary proposed thesis for speech (sAOS) The contemporary markers speech in sAOS. for diagnostic of the deficit marker apraxia stress a of suspected lexical although with a review supporting children findings extended identify describes to an used includes criteria report This n ONEJ NADLER J. CONNIE and OE .BROWN L. ROGER Abstract ( USA PA, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, of Hospital Children’s § USA WI, Wisconsin-Madison, { { KARLSSON B. HEATHER §, CAMPBELL SHRIBERG D. LAWRENCE ratio stress lexical apraxia the childhood speech: for of marker diagnostic A eevd1 uut20;acpe 0Otbr2002 October 30 accepted 2002; August 12 Received eerhDsg n ttsisUi,Sho fNrig nvriyof University Nursing, of School Unit, USA Statistics WI, and Wisconsin-Madison, Design of Research University Center, Waisman seset igoi,pai,lxclsrs,sec disorders speech stress, lexical praxis, diagnosis, Assessment, : SN06-26pitIS 4457 online 1464-5076 print/ISSN 0269-9206 ISSN st:http://www.waisman.wi bsite: O:10.1080/0269920031000138123 DOI: lnclLnusis&Phonetics & Linguistics Clinical http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals % eefo paeswt AS( sAOS with speakers from were ) 2003, , { VOL ,JANEL.MCSWEENY 17, . # { 03Tyo rni Ltd Francis & Taylor 2003 sc.edu/phonology/index.htm NO { ,549–574 7, . ,THOMASF. ) p v .0) The 0.003). { % , of { Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 osrc fasec iodrdet mardpai;()tecptlzdand capitalized the (b) praxis; impaired (a) to needs follows: due nosological as disorder accommodate used speech term methodological abbreviated a be To Shriberg, of and will and reported. Odell construct terms following 1997a; be background Kwiatkowski, four The and to praxis. 2001), Aram empirical study speech (Shriberg, elsewhere Campbell, in the the reviewed deficit Green, whose for provide a (Shriberg, children to rationales for study overviews due markers companion diagnostic are extended identify a disorders to speech and is significant 2003) present Scheer, the and McSweeny of goal The oto einfrdsrpieepaaoyrsac nsO.Csshv been have case- Cases of sAOS. form a in used research also have descriptive-explanatory studies for genetic design molecular and control behavioural few natural A and occurrence its for on accounts or best disorder the that defines that is framework history. and behaviours there that of explanatory studies concluded coherence. complex uniformly the of conceptual the case have on individual literature either isolated interpretation of consensus their body little many on this the of evaluated the reviews and Rather, be Evaluative from must domains convergence. findings reports of case-control explanatory theoretical speech sufficient and number with for neurolinguistic, findings descriptive a research support psycholinguistic, programmatic in few been empirical linguistic, variables have There descriptive control). processing variable motor speech (e.g. the linking with disciplines tests for study emphasized analyses typically Statistical under distal have treatment. possible proximal its for goals on the implications descriptive-explanatory speculate explicate and to and to pathophysiology, speech are etiology, of studies apraxia Shriberg underlying descriptive-explanatory (1995), processes of speech Ozanne Hall, goals (1994), (1993), The Strand Crary (1999). past and (1992), Velleman the al. Stackhouse (1993), et Guyette in (1988), Robin (1974), literature and Darley Thompson published this and Jordan Yoss (1981), of been (1972), reviews Diedrich Morley have include provide and decades that three sAOS past sources and the with reports Secondary over study years. children case 50 75 of over approximately that indicates studies journals language case-control English of review A of use by intended are term distinctions clinical abbreviated or consistent term conceptual are the and No histories speech. case capitalized of and/or apraxia tasks with the non-speech on (d) performance patterns, (sAOS) error and Speech speech; of Apraxia of term apraxia abbreviated of and capitalized (CAS) the (c) children; 550 19a ) cae oeta n ced(98 n auoadStrand and Caruso and (1998) McLeod and Rosenthal McCabe, c), (1997a, srsre o hlrncniee repstvsfradvlpetlform developmental a for positives true considered children for reserved is apraxia Introduction eei studies Genetic studies Behavioural overview Research pai fSec (AOS) Speech of Apraxia ahrthan rather sue o hlrnwoesec n prosody-voice and speech whose children for used is dyspraxia .D Shriberg D. L. nteefu classifications. four these in eest h curdfr naut or adults in form acquired the to refers tal et pai fspeech of apraxia . hlho pai fSpeech of Apraxia Childhood eest the to refers suspected Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 nlddi h ru fcide ikdt h addt ein hs although Thus, are region. specific candidate sAOS 40 the with approximately with to speech in linked children not observed a children are Some but of with disorders group involvement. language disorder) co-segregates the speech in language which without included candidate with group, the disorder is Cleveland comorbid language context the and (optionally present Hansen, the Lewis by disorder in Freebairn, Taylor, identified interest Hansen, Freebairn, particular 2002; region Shriberg, Taylor, Of (Lewis, and submitted). Taylor, Hansen origin Iyengar, Tiwari, Freebairn, unknown Lewis, Kundtz-Kluge, ascertained 2001; probands of Schick, Iyengar, in and gene disorder Dawson FOXP2 speech Shriberg, the near a gene susceptibility for a of presence apraxia the orofacial the speech. both between underlying of Links praxis for apraxia sAOS. in support the impairment with strong core and consistent provide a is of findings and that hypothesis psycholinguistic paper family the family and this landmark the companion neuroimaging in in genetic, transmitted this a the disorder genetically the speech Essentially, both is in for the that biomarkers sAOS. for apraxia addressed identifying of nonspeech) with possibility are (i.e. the children orofacial to in findings led later in has considered other programme timing research be and will speech research findings article, this investigating Selected in ago. present participated decade generously the a so have over who begun members programme family press). the Gadian, in of Gadian, and studies and Mishkin Vargha-Khadem Frackowiak, Watkins, Salmond, Friston, Gadian Belton, Vargha-Khadem, Connelly, 2002; Watkins, Watkins, Vargha-Khadem, 2002; Passingham, and 1998; Vargha-Khadem, Watkins Ashburner, and Frackowiak, Passingham, Passingham, Dronkers Watkins, Connelly, Alcock, and 2000b; 1995; 1999; Gadian Alcock, Vargha-Khadem, Passingham, Mishkin, and Ashburner, and Pembrey, Fletcher Price, apraxia of Friston, developmental Alcock, for Watkins, number Watkins, specific the be a Vargha-Khadem, (Vargha-Khadem, for to inference, presumed speech yielded by are and that of have apraxia, errors Monaco, orofacial speech and the studies of for pattern Vargha-Khadem Vargha- loci psycholinguistic processing Hurst, (Lai, Green, speech and Fisher, trait candidate Jamison, dominant Lai, Neuroimaging Povey, autosomal 2000; Jeremiah, 2001). an Monaco, Fox, as and co-segregates Hodgson, inherited Khadem that is Levy, an (FOXP2) and to Hurst, gene have apraxia findings Fisher, susceptibility members orofacial genetics a the whose of Molecular with identification disorder. of the speech-language half include a date family, and British disorder. apraxia this orofacial multigenerational of a account neurobiological describing the eventual in studies an findings genetic of substantive programmatic promise of several from the number findings offer limited above, the referenced to to non- designs sociodemographically sAOS contrast in index matched In (the used families proband families. their criteria the and proband of exclusionary children relatives and non-affected non-affected and the inclusionary case) are of controls but sets designs, same genetic the by identified h otiuino ontv-igitcpoesst iodrdfie san as defined disorder a to all processes virtually deliberating cognitive-linguistic when in of important and especially contribution are 1994) observations the Kwiatkowski, Such genotypes. and different (Lewis (Shriberg sAOS with disorders children speech with oeua eei aaeegn rmLwsadhrclege loindicate also colleagues her and Lewis from emerging data genetic Molecular from findings of array the review to paper present the of scope the beyond is It series study the is information neurobiological of source ongoing major The h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The tal. et 02,i slkl htsec ea n AShave sAOS and delay speech that likely is it 2002), , % –60 % fpecolchildren preschool of 551 Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 pai fsec,pooaso rvsoa nlsoayciei otnet appear, for to positives continue criteria true inclusionary are termed provisional who commonly of children proposals identify speech, to of available apraxia becomes biomarker a Until Henrichsen, Hansen, (e.g. galactosemia and 1996). Skjeldal, of 2000) and number Andressen a Scheffer, Carling, for 2002), Rasmussen, reported genetics Goldsmith, (e.g. been and Molecular also Gernsbacher paper. (e.g. have epilepsy this autism sAOS including in with disorders, later children developmental addressed include as that praxis, studies speech of impairment h rvosaaoy h nlg oa‘it nesoe tutrlpolmwith problem structural the a in termed underscores term sAOS ‘list’ ‘shopping’ for a the criteria to of inclusionary practice analogy current and the of research analogy, for previous checklists consequences the the current to addition of In use the in evident sAOS. are for where criteria literature, constraints efficiency inclusionary measures methods. administrative and Two and/or assessment tests psychometric the conceptual, existing attributes. in improved supplement claim familiar tests is or Diagnostic- new ‘bootstrapping’ sAOS. improve for of for negative form to derived or This attempt positive was as intensity, ratio studies speakers of stress classify marker to lexical contributions for need composite informative individual practical be For a the may the not. and but stress does described, lexical goals, studies necessary who inconsistent be descriptive-explanatory to and changes diagnostic-marker more to disorder duration the and study Thus, or has frequency the who one disorder. identify in to identify the example, need to of practical the is features address research descriptive diagnostic-marker sufficient of of 1982–1993. goal as features such from descriptive findings proposed Such published given been 30 2002). overstated have listing net– may seem (Campbell, (1998), that a checklists not colleagues sAOS specificity do and Lengthy wide McCabe to checklists itself. too by of of costs those use casts search unacceptable the childhood in lists about at that entity cautions such but critique clinical on sensitivity, cited a items widely was have (1981) speech of Diedrich’s of array and apraxia the The Guyette approaches. of that classification reminiscent is lists’ current problem ‘shopping McNeil’s with to sAOS. limitations central tantamount with conceptual as to children guidelines the such identify designed underscores of to workshops characterization how pointed especially practitioners (2002) and and articles, researchers chapters, teach assessment textbooks, in etrsi arne,bcueteeaecniinlrltosisaogthe among relationships of these characteristics conditional speech of describe here are and arrangement items (termed of listed there research hierarchical sAOS array some in because Specifically, non-linear, linear used markers. a warranted, a proposed lists of is that many structure the indicates features the of practice have inspection speech clinical However, of items. apraxia autonomous of features purported 552 nietegaso ecitv-xlntr eerhi pai fsec,the speech, of apraxia in research descriptive-explanatory of goals the Unlike igotccekit o sAOS for checklists Diagnostic overview Measurement h o-iert osritwt igotcchecklists diagnostic with constraint non-linearity The igotcchecklists diagnostic ecitv features descriptive .D Shriberg D. L. uhcekit r yial h centrepiece the typically are checklists Such . ,sm ecietesrcua conditions structural the describe some ), tal et non-linearity . osrit it of Lists constraint. Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 ope otxs(termed (termed contexts exacerbated or complex notable especially be contexts may descriptors which under oedfii fetdwsra rcsigad()hwcntssb osrce to constructed this be does tasks affects? how can (b) downstream how deficit, from (c) praxis which deficits and the volitional (a) core processing of processes, differentiate downstream core of four affect the those motor deficit generation comprise(s) among the core processes from in ‘the more challenge identify or A to is pattern...’. one been ability motor the has the praxis in especially literature initiate action, construct and control (1985), particular organize, core a plan, the of Ayres select, definition, performance to the in by for is, patterns defined praxis movement in As deficit a apraxia. praxis previously, speech suggested in As deficits for Markers speech. of apraxia of descriptors core descriptive the be those as describe specificity likely sections have would two to following seem checklists The do diagnostic that sAOS. contexts, features for in complex specific included be features, to to descriptive put currently found the If outcomes the of medicine. few linguistic evidence-based in accuracy, in or these diagnostic diagnosis series, of variance differential four-paper tests per- this for such between-group to used address introduction metrics the than ratios, the in negative are suggested likelihood and rather As interest. positive and of accuracy, as variables specificity, such classification and metrics, epidemio- individual sensitivity These conventional accuracy. values, are diagnostic studies predictive of diagnostic-marker at in tests classify used logical to statistics used the items sAOS, listed of sAOS. of product as as combination the that child is each too, one decision Notice, of least not metric. classification for reliabilities of do ordinal each individual an of ‘scores’ score combination even the reliability checklist any or severity the criterion, continuous Because measures, of a quantitative composite endorsed. of the type properties items meet the some of will have items number compute linear the also attested on checklists based Some children, sAOS. having nlsoaygieiei htacidhst eatse spstv naminimal a on 50 over positive (e.g. as checklist attested the be standard on to The items has of constraints. child percentage for psychometric a checklists or that have diagnostic number on is also found guideline typically items inclusionary in checklists orthogonality the of lack sAOS, the to addition In the and issues lists. conceptual most such list on to a found inter- attention among redundancies which forces relationships conditional excessive markers conditional within their intelligibility diagnostic non-linear, context reduced proposed of indicating significantly of complex assumption to tiers The lead a may tier). three is tier) (lowest of (highest tier) errors with one (middle vowel difficulty significant on utterances ‘more longer placed these of errors’, relationships: be each that vowel could Notice ‘significant intelligibility’. items reduced include ‘significantly and may utterances’ longer sAOS for checklist fpriua infiac ntepeetcnetaetefidnsfrteBritish the for findings the are context present the in significance particular Of of studies descriptive-explanatory in used statistics association the to contrast In ,adsm tm ecietelnusi osqecso ecitr in descriptors of consequences linguistic the describe items some and ), igotcmresi pai fspeech of apraxia in markers Diagnostic scoerccntanswt igotcchecklists diagnostic with constraints Psychometric h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The igitcoutcomes linguistic .Freape yia diagnostic typical a example, For ). % ob lsie as classified be to ) complex 553 Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 eaiet vrl eeiyo novmn.A eiwdpeiul,tepresent a the to previously, sAOS of reviewed features As clinical-descriptive proposed involvement. other increased of assign severity proportionally would perspective overall (e) to and syllable relative involvement and sound of increased severity proportionally (d) type, daetsud,()marked (c) sounds, adjacent transpositional 554 nld utpsta cu s()agntclytasitdqatttv ri (e.g. delay trait speech quantitative transmitted of genetically praxis subgroups a a etiological (a) of as proposed Relative Schick occur features sAOS. other that for descriptive four subtypes markers specific five include issues, and are sensitive specificity as there validity to face domain, have speech that disorder segmental the sAOS In of to markers linked Segmental closely most deficit. been praxis have a topographies however, of are, whose (i.e. There construct errors demands). the (e.g. speech articulatory task of cognitive-linguistic (e.g. memory), and classes as be domains two phonological such affective can segmental or domains, tasks working inventory), of word of phonetic (e.g. number nonsense memorial and a control representa- real in word-finding), to linguistic constraints maturational Responses by of rules). affected acquisition (i.e. grammatical (i.e. at and development growth are speech tions who and construct children in forms) to young suprasegmental testing is points when challenge particularly apraxia experimental deficits, in acquisition such the deficit isolate praxis above, core that suggested the tasks as As output speech. speech generate of that processes in the deficits as apraxia. disorder’ orofacial processing the ‘temporal of a with interpreted deficit significantly time consistent investigators core had in as These members did. findings only family members preliminary varying affected intact. family their the rhythms unaffected was loudness), than copy equal frequency difficulty to of more and were them intensity taps requiring the of in tasks (i.e. control difficulty tapping their requiring have on Thus, stimuli not However, patterns. did melodic imitate of indicated controls to imitation psycholinguistic unaffected Results ability requiring and tasks their members. productive linguistic and family and of speakers perceptual unaffected affected battery and the a affected that for b). to findings (2002a, administered Vargha-Khadem report tasks and papers Watkins two Passingham, These Alcock, by reported family nalfsa aaaeo hlrnwt pehdlyo nnw rgn(utnand (Austin origin unknown of available delay articulatory information speech (a) to with 1996): referenced children of all Shriberg, database are lifespan problem, a speech-sound praxis in a child of of reflection subtypes plausible etiological putative meeting four children of descriptors these transcripts feature in of disorders. a occur one segmental not (d) do for proposed Lewis, typically or criteria five paragraph Austin, (e.g. next 2002), The the systems (Shriberg, in 1997b). McSweeny, listed speech involvements Wilson, and in psychosocial and (Shriberg delay McSweeny developmental dysarthria maturational of a possible correlate of or consequence 2002) and a Nellis Bishop, Katcher, (c) Kertoy, 2000), Kwiatkowski, Thielke, Block, Flipsen, Shriberg, (e.g. effusion ntepeetcnet h bv nig o htmwudipiaecorollary implicate would rhythm for findings above the context, present the In h olwn v emna etr ecitr,rn-ree ytestrongest the by rank-ordered descriptors, feature segmental five following The tal. et nsbiso) b osqec feryrcretoii ei with media otitis recurrent early of consequence a (b) submission), in , ( metathetic ) usiuinerrors substitution inconsistencies .D Shriberg D. L. struggle ( groping nrpae oeso h aeword same the of tokens repeated on eetn eunigcntanson constraints sequencing reflecting tal et atclryo odost,(b) onsets, word on particularly ) . deletions oe/ihhn errors vowel/diphthong eaiet overall to relative Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 etrsudryn h ecp of percept the (b) underlying words), (a) gestures or sAOS: syllables to are constraints that on disorder specific praxis a and prominence of features sensitive Rasmussen, descriptive of three Kwiatkowski, both indicate (Shriberg, characteristics 1992) origin Miller, prosody-voice unknown and on of Lof delay data speech reference with domain, children suprasegmental the sAOS In of markers Suprasegmental reduced the speech, of of outcomes treatment). development linguistic slow in representing speech, progress tier of slow third onset word a intelligibility, delayed and to errors (e.g. increased or syllable problem words, speech) simple praxis multisyllabic of to in units errors restricted longer more output on clusters, on (e.g. errors contexts more complex shapes, as tier lower rvosscin ssgetdi h Alcock the movement the in the in proposed speech as suggested of intensity, As apraxia well of the section. as features control segmental previous parameters, five that suprasegmental that the commands underlying praxis of patterns of neuromotor duration disorder complex links and the the The frequency and although language. are stress and sAOS linguistic Therefore, speech defines of in is realization 1989). correlates stress and inconsistent with inconsistent (Levelt, between speech domain, variable phrases suprasegmental complex which the overlaid and linguistically within on a deficit words likely processes a as syllables, planned viewed are of typically highly constituents are prominence) utterances relative language across (i.e. and stress within the in overview Changes this present of the section in final empirical studied sAOS of The requires for percept praxis. disorder marker stress. the speech proposed lexical this of the inconsistent in of for paper: mediators deficit background validation and core a correlates eventual provides a and as and but for to tasks useful speech, support non-speech sensitive be from both of markers may are proposed apraxia data that Other praxis. history might features in literature, case descriptive deficit the a eight in for sAOS, to available for specific checklists restricted criteria diagnostic inclusionary be current numerous the usefully the that in is reflected point this as to developed thesis The and as or Shriberg Summary context 2001; deficit. complex Webb, praxis a the as and of classified Love outcomes appropriately linguistic more cf. the are dysarthria; or suspected 2002) McSweeny, of types certain eas h aohrnelrsnnedfeecsta aebe bevdin observed been (Shriberg marker English have in suprasegmental consequences that a phonemic have as differences not third do included resonance sAOS The is jaw with tongue, subsection. nasopharyngeal children it the following However, because the marker articulators. the because segmental are in a as velum detail included and be more could in feature proposed described are descriptors 97) te rpsdspaemna akr ndansi hclssaenon- are checklists diagnostic (e.g. on sAOS markers for specific suprasegmental proposed Other 1997c). nossetsrs sadansi akro sAOS of marker diagnostic a as stress Inconsistent nbt pehadpueeet n c nossetoral-nasal inconsistent (c) and events pause and speech both on h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The lwrate slow and yenslresonance hypernasal aohrnelresonance nasopharyngeal inconsistent inconsistent tal. et 20a )ppr bv and above papers b) (2000a, elzto of realization r rmnn etrsof features prominent are elzto of realization h rttwo first The . stress temporal tal. et (i.e. 555 , Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 eiso tde eotdb hiegadclege (Shriberg colleagues and Shriberg by a reported studies as of series stress A studies inconsistent cited Madison The sAOS of concerned speech. on specifically descriptions of been apraxia articles quantitative childhood have review of of decade and marker past these development diagnostic to chapters the of efforts the in book Reviews several series with the performance. study as task in Two well case stress previously. available as on descriptive-explanatory stress, are based linguistic individual studies markers of many diagnostic studies includes develop case-control sAOS and on studies literature The and 1998), 1997) 1997, Johnson, Kehoe, and b). 1998a, 1995; McGregor 1997, 1997; Buder, (1994, Kehoe (McGregor, atypical Goffman, Snow and 2002), colleagues and Vink, 1995; Stoel-Gammon recent and and Goffman, typical more McGregor (Kehoe, Chakraborty and Goffman, in in colleagues 1999; (Schwartz and prosody and Malin, colleagues 1978), and colleagues of and Smith Goffman and acquisition 1999; (e.g. Allen Goffman by the traits). Smith by reports and on speakers and early of 1975) research in acquisition Allen, states found programmatic the and be affective can Tingly on timing (e.g. perspectives individual and theoretical rhythm and stress, and data pragmatics phrase and phrase Descriptive-explanatory word and by (syllable, word stress emotional (syllable, (a) stress—governed (d) stress stress and events: emphatic pragmatics) word by (c) pause and stress—governed syntax), (syllable of semantics, by stress duration by words—governed sentential words—governed intensity, across the (b) within morphophonemics), of and stress and (syllable consistency events morphology stress and speech contrastive and of appropriateness lexical of duration the domains and affecting these frequency impairment among timing praxis deficits speech a mediates in that deficit a variable issue, praxis present processing. core the speech-language the in be paper companion may the in addressed xesv-qa-ipae teswsteol emna rsuprasegmental or as segmental described primary deficit only The stress 52 sentential sAOS. the differentiated a with the that that was children on was behaviour in data stress series stress perceptual 1997 excessive-equal-misplaced sentential the Shriberg primarily and from reported 2001; conclusion lexical has Shriberg, of 2002) and correlates McSweeny, Odell and 1999; Shriberg Shriberg and Velleman bevdsrs roscnomdt xettosfo erclphonology metrical from expectations in to words or conformed the syllables that errors of indicated transcripts assignments stress the stress of the observed analyses ability that Subsequent access their deficit discourse. and/or inherited stress—specifically, conversational store an of with represent, for development adults support linguistic to in as children’s observed errors interpreted these prosodic in were affected and did children findings speech also these Therefore, of children corrections in AOS. the self observed and the collaborators, not make by were not provided inconsistencies sAOS samples and for errors speech speech checklists conversational of diagnostic types The in origin. included unknown of delay speech with 556 hr r orsbye flnusi testa a eisetdfreiec of evidence for inspected be can that stress linguistic of subtypes four are There rgamtcrsac nsrs sadansi akro CAS of marker diagnostic a as stress on research Programmatic .D Shriberg D. L. % f4 hlrnwt ASfo 1children 71 from sAOS with children 48 of tal et . tal. et 97,b c; b, 1997a, , tal. et 2003; , Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 ahrta ecti h custo fsal neligrpeettosfrstress for representations deficit, underlying praxis stable a of acquisition with the consistent assignment. prior in more that deficit were was a studies sAOS, than with Madison rather children the of from false assessment possible findings the for stress in sources the negatives examined false in children which and reached in report, positives conclusion technical major involvement throughout McSweeny The and of and normalization. identification Shriberg protracted severity pre-treatment typically of of of period period range initial Wells, descriptive- a the motor large and many both in a at Stackhouse speech sAOS, noted is (cf. with As and sAOS there different 1999). with linguistic Fox, studies, eight and children explanatory cognitive, as Beckman in Fourakis, many isolate affected Edwards, as be 1993; to include study may conditions this that to from processes sampling need listed conclusion errors might of One segmental protocols of sAOS. types types assessment of five that markers led the likely speech was of studies most proposed prior to as the many in previously sAOS. of methods normalized underestimation sampling substantially speech the the had the to for have of that may many findings was who samples, conclusion that speech children The Recall conversational older eight on from previously. the solely were listed based of which were errors occurrence studies speech- of prosody three frequency the and previous which the speech that to in of indicated linked samples types words, closely speech is challenging the including environment phonetically sAOS, make sampling to with to audiocassette-taped children responded of not 100 children review elected A from conclusions. samples they and speech findings but above the appropriate, other of is examination appropriate, and it socially but is that forms), pragmatic self-correct know to underlying attempt did to correct an attempt. they require that manifest know (b) appeal would their not or which did that by they (i.e. realized (a) correct have either for not could children were accounted is, this forms sAOS, That in with be variables. prominent children so in developmental stress could revisions of and than representation repetitions dissociation linguistic rather (i.e. unstable example, errors to For to adults) phrasing findings. sAOS common the of in with a lack speakers differences by the of the failure linked attribute for the not account three in were could The issues disorders developmental self-correct deficit. but two stress praxis, the the in of that problem locus suggest interpreted psycholinguistic were would the are findings dissociations to but These production relative AOS. speech developmental inconclusive affecting with as insult children neurogenic in have a presumed suffered not not have did who adults AOS in with and adults sAOS of the with study children and sentential comparative 14 (Odell in of this dissociations involvement significant significant transcripts In statistically the 2001). three to Shriberg, yielded AOS stress acquired more inappropriate with was adults motor stress 14 speech in sentential deficit a with of than development realization linguistic prior control. in the inconsistent delay for a support with the as consistent viewed that were findings These interpretation 1999). Shriberg, and (Velleman g-dutdspeech age-adjusted phrasing eetfidnsrpre nSrbr n cwey(02 aemtvtdare- a motivated have (2002) McSweeny and Shriberg in reported findings Recent of patterns prosody and speech the comparing study subsequent a of results The .Telte rosasm orc neligfrs hc r presumed are which forms, underlying correct assume errors latter The ). rate h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The n infiatymr efcreto ros(emderrors (termed errors self-correction more significantly and stress oee,te a infiatyslower significantly had they however, ; 557 Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 ylbe ol evee sspotfrarpeettoa ecta the as deficit assignment. representational stress correct a children of such representation for that stable is unstressed a support assumption normally have The as sAOS. the not with do on normally children viewed stress the in excess locus on be psycholinguistic (or stress Children word reduced would bisyllabic control. relatively syllable) a syllable contrast, motor stressed in In speech the syllable control. on in stressed stress motor excessive deficit poor have syllable) a to but unstressed due assignment with normally stress consistent correct the the as on know viewed stress normally reduced be the within on relatively located would stress rules (or excess stress syllable Accordingly, of stressed processing. representation is of representational the The levels the deficit with praxis. cognitive-linguistic reflect processing, speech the deficits speech in stress of of deficit that aspects locus a is specifically, perspective psycholinguistic explanatory processes, the alternative control entity. just the that clinical motor for proposed methods speech is findings this within and of defines perspective implication that rationale conventional the deficit praxis bootstraps on The the speculate valid the of to a locus using was develop psycholinguistic goal to CAS secondary was for a goal primary reviewed, groups marker the investigator reliable Although speech, two sAOS. of of and acoustic with apraxia decisions an for children classification of biomarker identify independent accuracy to a the diagnostic Lacking used the sAOS. design assess with the to children was for study marker present stress the of goal stress The lexical lower stress. (c) sentential real in in words, not variability but real intersubject words complexity nonsense more for in phonetic (d) words not trochaic as and on words than stress but words lexical iambic words on multisyllabic for accuracy nonsense and percentages bisyllabic for these in accuracy had: increased syllables sAOS lower for stressed with (b) children tasks correctly of words, of samples sentential percentages their and lower controls, to (a) colleagues lexical comparison and in both Skinder-Meredith and that, findings, reported in excessive-equal stress-related they other the although differences Among studies, sAOS participants. stress Madison with the reported in participants nonsense reported have their patterns words, in stress investiga- (real sentential observed These misplaced memory not complexity. phonological have phonological/phonetic working and tors of assignment tradeoffs parametric stress level quantify including words), to the variables, inclusionary processing first children at speech the identify of relevant challenges were to other set and (1998) colleagues stress Marquardt and the between and Skinder-Meredith in sampling using Jakielski sAOS. many stress Davis, constructs, with included sentential by have processing proposed and has studies speech markers controlled lexical 2001) and well of Strand, These environments aspects sAOS. and acoustic with and Wright children and and Wright Stoel-Gammon, perceptual Strand Stoel-Gammon, Skinder-Meredith, investigated Skinder-Meredith, (Skinder, Skinder-Meredith, 2000; 2000; 2000; colleagues Betz, Betz, Betz, and and Strand and Skinder-Meredith Connaghan, Stoel-Gammon by Skinder, studies 1999; Mignerey, of series A studies Seattle/Duluth The 558 ttmn fteproblem the of Statement .D Shriberg D. L. tal et . Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 ohv opeesv tnadzdsoeo h EF rCL- f8 or 85 of CELF-P or CELF3 required the were on study score current Klee, standardized and Task parent and comprehensive Stress the a (Robbins Lexical in the have task Participants (f) to described). and screening be sample (VMPAC; orofacial speech to Children conversational an (LST; 12-minute for (d) a Sequencing Assessment (e) 1999), Speech 1987), Production and of Square, the Motor Oral and (b) Hospital the Verbal KHz, 6 Hayden (c) the Children’s and 1995), 4 Secord, from Semel, the 2, and and subtests 1, Wiig Secord at of Semel, Wiig, frequencies (CELF-P; CELF3; suite the Fundamentals 1992; for Language a test HL of (a) dB included: Evaluation a 20 study Clinical parent at in the set for screening protocol assessed hearing the measures, were other Among children Pittsburgh. 35 The speakers. these of many was for sample, intelligibility a of in levels words lower Lewis intelligible indicating of group (cf. percentage children the 92 by approximately these Intelligibility indexed of high as relatively ages intelligibility, the older 1, (Austin table relatively delay in speech shown with as (Shriberg Index children Finally, 1996). preschool-aged Shriberg, younger, and of 70 average samples the clinical than in higher points percentage 14 approximately Hall Shriberg (e.g. (e.g. sAOS delay and speech 1994) on literatures Kwiatkowski, the and in reported proportions with consistent h ihpootoso ae nec ru (SD group each in males group. each of in participants proportions for ages high of ranges the The and deviations standard obtained ecnaeo osnnsCret(C)soe o l paes(84 speakers all for scores (PCC) Correct Consonants of Percentage gso h hlrni h w ruswr prxmtl iia ttetm their time the at similar approximately were average groups The (SD two (sAOS). sampled two the Speech was into in speech of classified children Apraxia were the suspected criteria children of and groups’ the ages (SD) investigator section), Delay two following Speech the the or on groups: in Based neurological (described study. sAOS present suspected the for for or used were documented data language no and as sensitivity and well hearing data disorder. normal history as development have of case apraxia skills children from for with that comprehension criteria obtained siblings were meet as might more records, criteria, thought or the Wisconsin. clinical they inclusionary two in whom refer Additional Madison, of and one to speech. hospital least asked in Pittsburgh at were delay, the Clinicians Center speech at area. assistance pathologists a Waisman Pittsburgh for speech-language greater requests in 50 the written over assessed and and from presentations was included Children’s Pittsburgh procedures speech the Recruitment at whose of groups investigator children Hospital involving study 3–12-year-old speech-genetics 35 collaborative were Participants Recruitment al nldsdsrpieifrainfrte3 hlrnwoeassessment whose children 35 the for information descriptive includes 1 Table Protocol Participants Method tal. et % cosgop,wt h agrsadr eito o h sAOS the for deviation standard larger the with groups, across h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The 97)soe o ohgop eeas ossetwt the with consistent also were groups both for scores 1997a) , ~ er,4mnh;sAOS months; 4 years, 6 tal. et ~ 93,rsetvl.Temean The respectively. 1993), , er,1mnh,a eethe were as month), 1 years, 7 tal. et ~ 67 02.Teraverage Their 2002). , % % sAOS , C crsfound scores PCC ~ 91 % % was ) are ) 559 oa 56724331; 432. 371. 349. 188259.4–99.6 8.2 91.8 53.4–99.1 11.2 83.7 25.7 74.3 3;3–12;0 2;4 6;7 35 Total Group pehDly(D 46425341; 673. 571. 399. 315979.3–99.6 5.9 93.1 63.9–99.1 10.0 85.7 33.3 66.7 3;4–12;0 2;5 6;4 24 of Apraxia Suspected (SD) Delay Speech peh(sAOS) Speech al 1. Table ecito ftepriiat lsie shvn pehdlyo nnw rgn(D rssetdarxao peh(sAOS) speech of apraxia suspected or (SD) origin unknown of delay speech having as classified participants the of Description 17121331;09. . 931. 349. 911. 59.4–98.3 11.6 89.1 53.4–95.1 13.0 79.3 9.1 90.9 3;3–10;10 2;1 7;1 11 n Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 MSD g yasmnh)Sex (years;months) Age Range % Male % Female MSD ecnaeo Consonants of Percentage orc nelgblt Index Intelligibility Correct Range MSD

Range

560 tal et .D Shriberg D. L. . Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 sdt bantesxaosi aus termed Procedures values, ratio. acoustic stress been six (F to lexical frequency had likely composite the area, data amplitude most a average, obtain were which in to duration use on and for used variables frequency criteria indicated acoustic amplitude, distributional analyses candidate of meet Preliminary was measures of filter. deck six number bandwidth tape obtained, Hz a with 300 112MKII displays among a Tascam spectrographic and that a provide setting to by and 100-point fed responses a system participants’ digitize 4300B to CSL used Elemetrics Kay the A to analyses eight Due Acoustic the on analysis. only completed stress were below. analyses for acoustic listed lengthened type, words The inappropriate this examiners’ trochaic words. of words spondee loss the and increased data these iambic extensive (playfully) confirmed of rendered syllables purposefully second responses had syllables the children of children’s duration many the the that However, impressions phrase. of carrier anecdotal a was without inspection imitation speakers for preliminary tabletop presented were child. two words each the from for speakers, signal US level Midwestern The listening with comfortable style. woman a a speech to by natural isolation you adjusted presented a in what was repeat recorded using word and been Each speech closely, had book. ‘Listen stimuli picture to All accompanied a participants hear’. presentation in as instructed word each examiners (i.e. the with The of of once. words audiocassette, illustration version an this unfamiliar colourful for on a or stimuli by presented imitative familiar were The LST tasks). less repetition the with word in nonsense children phonological associated in working young assessed more in constraint to deficits of familiar with a deletions confounds nouns memory, interpretive syllable to possible restricted probable avoid also to to from order were restricted loss three Words were data the forms. Words of expected complex spondee). each reduce and for to to iambic words participants bisyllabics (trochaic, eight required including patterns (LST) isolation, stress Task in bisyllabic Stress presented words Lexical 24 the imitate of version experimental Task An Stress as Lexical protocol. mechanism The Klee oral and the Robbins of the structure using the in results deficit by significant indicated clinically no and above eetknfo h o-aaie oto ftevwl o aho h oesin vowels the of each the For vowel. ( in the forms word of pulsing trochaic measures portion eight peak non-nasalized the glottal the frequency in the and strong included from peak were taken amplitude by vowel were but the measures, identified of duration portions nucleus were Nasalized vowel structure. Vowels formant of durations. presence their store paragraph. following the in described are mltd otus(08 Bdslyrne 0m rm egh pitch visually were length, amplitude frame peak amplitude and ms 20 and frequency pitch range, the peak From the vowel. display and each respectively, range) for dB analysis produced contours, Hz then (70–350 (20–80 were contours synchronous) Pitch contours consonant. following amplitude the of onset window omnmz h ifiut fteiiaiets o h otspeech-involved most the for task imitative the of difficulty the minimize To h rtpaeo h nlsswst emn h oesi ahslal n to and syllable each in vowels the segment to was analysis the of phase first The ,vwl eesgetdfo h fsto h rcdn osnn othe to consonant preceding the of offset the from segmented were vowels ), h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The chicken 0 aiu,feuny(F frequency maximum, ) , dishes , hammer mltd aiu,amplitude maximum, amplitude , ladder , peanut 0 raadduration and area ) , puppy , robot 561 , , Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 ai LR.TeLRfrec niiulwsdfie sLSR as defined was individual Stress each Lexical the for as defined LSR was speaker The each for (LSR). score Ratio composite the and therefore ables, were maximum amplitude and average eliminated. amplitude maximum, frequency adts) conigfrapoiaey64 approximately for accounting test), Wald mum unymaximum quency h ietoa neeti ohlwadhg Ss,tefut tpwssml to simply was step fourth the LSRs), high and low both in interest directional the measure. acoustic duration 562 apiueaeae F average, [amplitude h 5sekr.Alvralslae oiieyo igedmnindfie as defined dimension of was single each a analysis for on area factor variables positively acoustic The loaded (frequency six variables averages. the All stress ratio of speakers. each trochaic 35 from the the information for using conducted score per by ratio composite syllable. divided average syllable (second) gate (first) weak an strong each The providing the for words. for averaged, value trochaic value corresponding then eight the the the reflected were ratios of individual These each of individual. for per each individual for ratios per obtained were eight variables ratios acoustic First, six phases. four the in proceeded analyses Statistical ms. 4/18 to ms 4/16 optda h on fmxmmeeg rmte10 the was from frequency energy peak produced, maximum the be not and of could points, point contour 1024 pitch the with a at when midpoint reproduced computed occasions temporal was formant few the the spectrogram the near which the On stable—typically at vowel. relatively was the was and there of vowel sounds which the at speech of vowel surrounding the structure in from segment interference the was minimal point measurement The identified. esrmns h agso h enitaug ifrne n interjudge original and follows: the differences as were completed intrajudge data these who of mean subsets on persons the slash) amplitude a two by of respectively the (divided ranges differences For the agreement. measurements, interjudge and he cutcmaue feunyarea (frequency measures acoustic three cipants admsml f37(22 377 of sample random and A average and estimate amplitude area Reliability the amplitude multiplying duration. The by vowel application. corresponding segmented derived the each CSL by then for average the were averages frequency within frequency area and computed frequency averages were Amplitude vowel 10. by divided C 2 S hr,fco ersinsoe eeotie ntetresgicn vari- significant three the on obtained were scores regression factor Third, eas neeta ttsiswr o prpit o h rsn aa(u to (due data present the for appropriate not were statistics inferential Because eod omnfco nlssmdlwsue ooti igeaggre- single a obtain to used was model analysis factor common a Second, 2i ~ z 6 .2) u nytefis he aibe oddsgicnl ( significantly loaded variables three first the only but 0.021), C ~ 3 ih rcacwords trochaic eight ~ S .0) n a h vrgdrtosoefridvda i o each for (i) individual for score ratio averaged the was S and 0.303), ttsia analyses Statistical 3i ./. Bt ./. B F dB, 0.8/1.3 to dB 0.4/0.9 hr C where , ~ .2,apiueaverage amplitude 0.025, o 1 vrg,drto] a emaue oetmt intrajudge estimate to re-measured was duration]) average, ~ ,C .3,apiuearea amplitude 0.831, 2 n C and 6 .D Shriberg D. L. % w oesprword per vowels two fteoiia 60maueet 3 parti- (35 measurements 1680 original the of ) 3 eetefco ersinsoe o the for scores regression factor the were 0 ~ ./4H o231. zadduration and Hz 2.3/10.9 to Hz 1.2/14 ~ % .9,apiuearea amplitude 0.490, tal et ftevrac.Tevralsof variables The variance. the of ~ ~ . .2 n mltd maxi- amplitude and 0.025 .6,duration 0.861, 6 he cutcvariables acoustic three th amncfrequency harmonic ~ ~ .1,fre- 0.515, .0 and 0.507 i ~ p C v 1 S 0.05, 1i z ~ Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 paesi hs tpclaeswssaitclysgicn ( significant the statistically of areas was these areas in atypical chance these by of number in occurred the 16 have speakers to or Compared would speakers group. (1.8 that sAOS distribution sAOS the in with speakers speakers from were lowest) three hw ntbe2(nesnDrig i o eettehptei fnormality of hypothesis the reject not did (Anderson-Darling) (A 2 table in shown sis ol eepce nete tpclLRae ycac ol e18(..2 (i.e. 1.8 be would chance by area LSR atypical either in [0.08 expected be would hi pehsau ttetm hywr etdfrtepeetsuy(Percentage study present the for tested Correct: sAOS were for LSR they ( Consonants time that criteria ages the indicated six participants’ at of analyses the with status Correlational on speech associated groups. status their significantly investigator their not two including was the 2, table by LSR in the used provided of is shape the pants that indicated 3.34 flat. of somewhat value was kurtosis distribution the although analysis, h 5priiat.Terto agdfo iho .5t o f0.64 of low a to 1.65 of high a from for lowest ranged to ratios highest from The ordered (mean participants. values LSR 35 of distribution the the includes 2 Table with children in locus as psycholinguistic viewed the be as would deficit LSR) stress sAOS. low representational reduced relatively a contrast, viewed a In for be (yielding control. support would syllable motor stressed LSR) speech normally in high the deficit relatively on a a with stress (yielding consistent excessive more syllable previously, as stressed described As normally values. the LSR on of distribution the rank-order htwudb nete tpclae fteLRdsrbto ycac ol be would chance by distribution LSR (SD) the delay [0.08 of speech area 2 with these atypical participants on (i.e. either 24 Based 3.8 in the mean. be of the would number below that expected and the above points, deviations cut-off standard two to equivalent xrmso h itiuinwr enda ausaoete92 the above LSR values lower as which and defined determine upper were The to stress. distribution lexical used the ‘atypical’ of for was criterion extremes approach conservative a non-parametric met values a criteria, cut-off p hnepce ycac eeaogbt h ags n mletLR obtained LSRs smallest speakers. and 35 largest sAOS the of with both sample speakers among this more were for significantly classified chance speakers of by of LSRs expected those the than from Specifically, different delayed. were speech sAOS as as classified speakers of LSRs p ausblwte8 the below values ~ v ~ 2 ~ ssoni al ,fieo h i oteteeLRvle trehighest, (three values LSR extreme most six the of five 2, table in shown As te eeatdmgahcadsec nomto bu h partici- the about information speech and demographic relevant Other eas h S itiuinwsmr a hndsrbefrueo parametric of use for desirable than flat more was distribution LSR the Because 0.320). .0) hs nrsos otefis usinpsdo h S erc the metric, LSR the of posed question first the to response in Thus, 0.003). .4.Fnig rmanraiyts o h itiuino S scores LSR of distribution the for test normality a from Findings 3.34). 6 0.466, ~ 11] .6 median 0.96, ~ usin1 oteLR fcide ihsO ifrfo hs of those from differ sAOS with children of SD? LSRs with the children do 1: Question Results 1.8). p ~ .3) hs h itiuino crsmtciei o parametric for criteria met scores of distribution the Thus, 0.237). 6 24] h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The th ~ ~ .) h ubro h 1priiat ihsO that sAOS with participants 11 the of number The 3.8). ecnie epciey uhvle r approximately are values Such respectively. percentile, .4 tnaddeviation standard 0.94, r ~ % 0.143, ,teotie nigo fte1 (46 11 the of 5 of finding obtained the ), p ~ .1;ItliiiiyIndex: Intelligibility 0.413; ~ .0 skew 0.20, r ~ 2 0.179, x nd 2 ~ d,1] [df, ecnieand percentile .8 kurto- 1.18, p ~ % r .0 or 0.30) ~ ~ sAOS ) 0.173, 9.052, 563 109 ; 588. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 92.2 74.3 87.1 82.1 X 70.4 91.7 X X X 75.8 93.9 86.4 94.7 X 92.2 99.2 X 87.5 83.0 X 7;2 X 97.9 99.1 3;6 77.3 97.7 X 8;2 X 99.1 97.3 X 6;3 96.6 54.1 X X 5;10 95.7 X X 90.5 8;3 53.4 88.9 X 71.9 7;10 90.8 X 96.6 4;6 71.9 X 63.9 X 8;10 X 86.5 0.89 X 95.7 96.7 9;5 X 0.91 X 82.5 78.7 X X 0.91 X 12;0 92.0 87.7 X 6;5 X 0.93 78.7 63.8 X X 9;5 X 0.93 83.9 23 3;4 96.2 X 0.94 X 3;7 57.6 88.5 22 X X 0.94 5;3 21 X 95.1 X X 0.96 5;11 81.7 20 X X 0.96 8;5 19 X 0.99 3;4 18 1.00 X 3;5 17 X X 1.01 3;3 X 16 1.03 5;10 X 15 1.05 6;0 X 14 1.07 X X 13 1.07 X X 12 1.09 X X 11 1.13 10 1.13 9 1.14 8 1.23 7 1.27 6 1.65 5 4 3 2 1 atNo. pant Partici- al 2. Table fSec)adicuinr rtraue ytetoivsiao rus h S ausaerne rmhgett lowest to highest from ranked are values LSR Apraxia Suspected The sAOS: groups. Delay; Speech investigator (SD: two groups the speaker two by the used in criteria participants for inclusionary findings and (LSR) Speech) Ratio Stress of Lexical the of Summary Lexical Stress ai DsO ysms C CRCnitnySgeainSrs rcso rniin Stress Transitions Precision Stress Segregation Consistency PCCR PCC F M (yrs;mos) sAOS SD Ratio Group Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 Participants Age e Speech Sex Segmental ro ylbeadSyllable and Syllable Error aio rtraPtsug Criteria Pittsburgh Criteria Madison nlsoayCiei o atcpnswt sAOS with Participants for Criteria Inclusionary

on/Rt Sound/ Rate Sound/ ursgetlSgetlSuprasegmental Segmental Suprasegmental

564 tal et .D Shriberg D. L. . atNo. pant Partici- 506 01 619. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90.0 99.2 91.9 86.1 98.1 92.6 X 77.0 78.0 X X 85.2 91.1 70.6 86.8 84.5 91.2 X 98.2 X 10;10 81.8 5;7 85.2 89.3 X X 7;0 98.0 94.0 X 4;9 85.0 89.6 X X 6;2 87.2 X X 7;2 85.6 X 8;11 5;8 X X 9;6 X 0.64 X 3;7 X 0.65 6;2 X X 0.71 8;3 0.72 X 0.74 35 0.75 34 X X 0.80 33 X 0.80 32 X 0.82 31 0.84 30 0.88 29 0.89 28 27 26 25 24 Lexical Stress ai DsO ysms C CRCnitnySgeainSrs rcso rniin Stress Transitions Precision Stress Segregation Consistency PCCR PCC F M (yrs;mos) sAOS SD Ratio Group Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 Participants Age e Speech Sex al 2. Table (Continued) Segmental ro ylbeadSyllable and Syllable Error aio rtraPtsug Criteria Pittsburgh Criteria Madison nlsoayCiei o atcpnswt sAOS with Participants for Criteria Inclusionary

on/Rt Sound/ Rate Sound/ ursgetlSgetlSuprasegmental Segmental Suprasegmental

565 h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 setbe2,dfeecso h lsicto ftetre ASgopare group sAOS target the of classification the on differences 2), table (see lhuhtecasfiaindcsoswr iia o 0o h 5(86 35 the of research. 30 the apraxia of for on in similar set based were active common if decisions groups validity a it classification investigator concurrent develop Rather, the two greater groups. to Although investigator have of attempt two would classifications the no findings independent by was that used be there decided to study, was sAOS this for features of descriptive outset the At validity Consensual issues. reliability and validity some of consideration the assessment with for begins findings of theory implication and the on Comment groups. investigator the of both (comprising sAOS to with sensitive children (80 five are the features and Of acoustic task sAOS. 83 three with stress children from lexical in derived a differences ratio that stress is stress study lexical this composite of a finding diagnostic-marker primary the The for of checked ranges low also investigator and were two middle the variables high, of the scores. inclusionary LSR each into five of fell by distribution values other groups obtained 2. table LSR LSR the in whose three columns of participants all right-most Most coded six in perceptually the groups. speakers of in for criterion children the 11 three checked the the that the as of into for especially criteria, each divided classification entries Notice on investigators’ (as the scores the scores by high to LSR shown older unrelated or in Finally, apparently low speaker and involvement. were one relatively least speech subgroups) had younger at of who also indices relatively trends. was subgroups There two three clear were subgroups. the LSR of LSR of three there presence and the each of the age uncorrelated, each that suggest in essentially indicating children not analyses were did preliminary groups the values with LSR consistent three Specifically, the in speakers 566 middle grgtda the as aggregated ae nterLRsoe.Priiat ubr1 n lal opie the comprised clearly 3 participants subgroups and 11 three 2 all 1, into number from divided Participants information were scores. available participants LSR high the their these interpretation on sAOS, use the based in for to aid identify criteria might order that to meeting In information completed – some findings. were data in 2 analyses table of differences the descriptive stress or in simple perceived trends one of Some possible potential at source offer sAOS. values the findings with LSR Thus, on had children atypical. perspective as sAOS either defined for for distribution criteria support the study of meeting range other children the 11 the of Five % % npcino h eorpi,sec n igotcciei aai al for 2 table in data criteria diagnostic and speech demographic, the of Inspection ru LRrange (LSR group eecniee ohv ecti tesa lsie ecpulyb n or one by perceptually classified as stress in deficit a have to considered were ) ftesoe ntergo fteLRdsrbto enda tpcl,four atypical), as defined distribution LSR the of region the in scores the of ru LRrange (LSR group aiiyadrlaiiyissues reliability and Validity Discussion ihpsil ect nsec oo oto rcse rin or consistent processes more control sAOS motor with speech processes? speakers in representational the deficits for possible findings with Are 2: Question low ru LRrange (LSR group ~ .316) atcpns1,1,2 n 4wr lcdi a in placed were 24 and 21 12, 11, participants 1.23–1.65); ~ .910) n atcpns2,3,3 n 5were 35 and 33 30, 28, participants and 0.89–1.03); .D Shriberg D. L. ~ 0.64–0.80). tal et . nprpit stress inappropriate % speakers ) was Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 o h 1cide lsie ssO yete ru a ny18 only was group agreement either title, by in 64 sAOS similar and as were domain classified domains timing children the 11 transi- Although the variable. sound/syllable for stress speech-timing Pittsburgh: a a and segregations; supraseg- including tions) groups, similar sound/syllable investigator seemingly and (Madison: two the segmental the variable 2 by judging table assessed in in variables used Notice mental criteria status. perceptual suprasegmental the especially in differences reflected likely stress. lexical or sentential in deficit ossetwt h ako osnu nwihcide hudb lsie as agreement classified were classification who be group, children investigator should 55 11 either only children the by on sAOS was which for percentaged positive on as as Specifically, consensus classified speech. of of apraxia lack having the with consistent om n ec yial curdadmsee ae Khe 97 McGregor 1997; (Kehoe, First, later trochaic ways. likely mastered to Goffman would several and relative 1997; task) marked acquired in Johnson, stress are typically and the Task forms hence in iambic Stress and that intended forms Lexical given differences originally sensitivity, stress (as the added to forms provide for sensitivity iambic achieved increased of of inclusion be marker, form LSR probably the the of in can validity validity diagnostic construct the support greater findings statistical the Although less were validity they Construct that CAS. view of for a lack positives support the true CAS), could for be children positives to six true likely remaining sAOS possible the with (i.e. children distribution on five the agreement the of of extremes status the classification at the on consensus between-group (86 six group, this by articulation made the suprasegmental classifications or and sAOS sample segmental seven speech on the conversational based Of the were test. only classifications contrast, The in 2). in occurring (table precision group, behaviours and/or Madison rate the the in deficit of in eight a observed (80 that for Note deficits positive ten tasks. considered precision independent repetition and the syllable rate an challenging of as the well and make conversational as tasks the test, diadochokinetic decisions in to classification observed articulation deficits both their the protocol suprasegmental Thus, sample, from and protocol. segmental the information the on in based used tasks were non-speech from investigators and each Pittsburgh speech by needed the The used use decision. were information group investigator of classification each tasks sources had different procedure whatever the methodological The to group. attributed investigator likely were tions atcpnscasfida AS hs S crswr ntemdl rtypical or middle the in lower were and six 33 scores upper other only LSR the the whose for was in agreement sAOS, range, sAOS Between-group as distribution. with classified LSR participants participants the five of 80 areas the this was atypical which this for there of in that groups findings sense 2 primary a investigator table the is in to there Notice support but study. validity sAOS, concurrent of contributes classification information the in validity consensual h o aeo ewe-ru gemnso h AScasfiain also classifications sAOS the on agreements between-group of rate low The usata ubro h ewe-ru iareet nsO classifica- sAOS in disagreements between-group the of number substantial A hs o ae fareetaentecuaigfo h esetv of perspective the from encouraging not are agreement of rates low These % ie h w rusare nsxo h 1sO classifications). sAOS 11 the of six on agreed groups two the (i.e. % hlrncasfida ASb h itbrhgopwere group Pittsburgh the by sAOS as classified children ) % h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The % 26areet) hs ncmaio otesubstantial the to comparison in Thus, agreements). (2/6 71)frtesrs domain. stress the for (7/11) tal. et 02.Scn,suiso agrnmesof numbers larger of studies Second, 2002). , % 45 lsicto gemn between agreement classification (4/5) % % 21)frthe for (2/11) nldda included ) 567 Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 w bevtosaottefidnssoni al 2. table on in based is shown position in findings This deficit the programming words. representational about multisyllabic a or or in observations with planning bisyllabic two than evidence pre-speech of 1) figure assignment in indirect 2001; stress findings deficit Shriberg, the present from and praxis the Odell that a concluded (cf. is with stages As here consistent proposed sAOS. in more view feature the are with psycholinguistic descriptive (2002), prominent McSweeny possible children a and as the Shriberg of described addressed been reports has study that most this deficit stress in a of posed locus question second The Task Stress some Lexical LSR the had of the sensitivity by have Ratio. of the captured Stress one increase is may Lexical not to problem the how the was and scores if so, that determine if to deficit LSR and able measurement, be stress the should typical a of research some Additional and of least procedure. apparently form validity at that evident the with is the perceptually data involves for acoustic participants atypically question explanations the the possible and first six in perceptual many the or the of between One area to mismatch and above. stress answer typical discussed excessive as issues The atypically defined methodological area. range the the stress in understand in scores reduced to scores LSR is LSR were had method had findings sAOS and others Although with be theory stress. speakers both to in some for appears deficit why challenge words a the lexical of trochaic of significant, impression eight measure statistically perceptual acoustic of the composite productions to a imitative sensitive that from was study obtained this stress of that finding study. primary likely current The is the in it Summary observed as sufficient, levels children and the of at classifications necessary remain of as reliability will and sAOS biomarker validated validity having or the is intrajudge marker of speech and behavioural estimates independent a interjudge of until increase apraxia However, can in for variables. data exemplars these perceptual on ample other developed agreement with with well As and programs as improved. methods such training be instrumental sAOS can acoustic-aided of study disorders, makers present communicative diagnostic the in using used decisions those classification of reliability The and reliabilities Reliability processing. increased signal including and and analysis, capture participants and signal for acquisition of presentation, efficiencies elements data Skinder-Meredith motivational (cf., efficient are increased metric more words the and certain of reliable sensitivity that contribute combined level the words indicate word al. diminish other a et to actually Third, whereas may of scores, likely indicated. and composite are possibility if less the data to forms, the significantly composite word contributing including future iambic weightings of variables, and stable analyses more trochaic acoustic with for composites three composite LSR develop the to across useful be would children 568 00.Fnly optrzdassmn prahcudpoiefrmore for provide could approach assessment computerized a Finally, 2000). , ou ftesrs ecti sAOS in deficit stress the of Locus .D Shriberg D. L. tal et . Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 niintosbye farxa nyoeo hc novssrs deficits. stress involves which of one only to than apraxia, effects, of topologic varying subtypes and expression two of envision severity suspected community. varying with pathology with children speech disorder of clinical treatment the and by greater identification speech the early of sources include improved apraxia earlier internet from as in may information proposed well suprasegmental referral factors than as and and explanatory rates diagnostic informative significant segmental welcome of more availability both and at a time Significant that have over sAOS literature. designs abate with sAOS case-control reviewed children in all deficits and findings not on studies that based conclude case to First, correct deficit findings. more stress prior is retrieval. it and veridical previously, present for the stable sufficiently accommodate stress may or the lexical others developed and and consider well sentential children change, which not to in some speech are disorder that underlying was assignment linguistic) was disorder (i.e. findings proposal praxis representational a a The such have have speech. may of accommodate sAOS apraxia to with of with Shriberg subtypes children way In are of involvement. all, values suggested prosodic possibility not these of but a type previously, some most, noted (1997c), having that As as participants perceived indicating study. 11 are findings this the sAOS in of literature five defined with only as consistent data, distribution acoustic the the of on Based stress. (46 in deficit a had eodosraino h nig ntbe2cnen h rprinof proportion the study. this (82 concerns in 11 assessed the 2 as table of stress nine in in data, deficit perceptual findings a the had on the who Based sAOS on as classified observation participants control. motor second speech in A deficit considerations praxis relatively Subtype a of to the stressed-to- concept seem large would the syllable) Accordingly, had with stressed who consistent the on graded. sAOS more stress with be excessive (i.e. continuously participants behaviours ratios three motor syllable as the unstressed atypical of or modelled scores typical low the contrast, continuous for In generally observed 2. those table be than are in would values shown assignment LSR values lower stress considerably atypical feature-based to from sum scores to predicted LSR on influence aggregate oelda iayfaue;i h rsn otx,tesrs sinetof assignment stress the as context, often represented are present be representations would the linguistic substantial words in for a in values features; see syllables speakers the binary to constituent the that by expect the as is obtained rationale might values reduced modelled in typical The (i.e. one the values SD. deficit syllable), and LSR those with values lowest stressed a these than two typically between the if literature discontinuity the of discontinuity source control Specifically, on the more motor stress appreciable was variables. be stress the to of no cognitive-linguistic in representation seem with would with obtained ratios, functions associated stress ratios, A highest with composite value. the ranked stress atypical consistent highest only from next with of typical the distribution, demarking from continuous distribution distance appreciable a an continuous form at 2 (1.65) table value in LSR values LSR The considerations Distributional % eod n oepitdy ti oeprioiu oevso n praxis one envision to parsimonious more is it pointedly, more and Second, to subgroups of proposal prior the on perspective different a have now We lsie ecpulya AShdLRsoe tete fteayia ends atypical the of either at scores LSR had sAOS as perceptually classified ) ttetm hyaeassessed are they time the at h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The hr sicesn vdnefo both from evidence increasing is There . % atcpnscasfida sAOS as classified participants ) z tesor stress 2 tes The stress. tal. et 569 Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 ee lpe r o epu dtra omnsadt ahrn anrfor the Hauner by Katherina supported to is research and and This comments Green assistance. editorial Jordan and to helpful suggestions thanks for editorial Jennine Special significant Jr. Scheer, Wirka. Flipsen Alison Marie and Rusiewicz, Peter project, Wilson Heather Nash, the David Tammy Rasmussen, of Lewis, Sprangers, and Carmen Barbara stages Madison Hall, different Pitcairn, Sheryl Pittsburgh, at Gretz, Dayna in Sharon contributions Thanks Freebairn, collaborators and project. Lisa assistance this including and in their children colleagues participate the for laboratory to to Cleveland time and our study their to Hospital this volunteered also for Children’s who participants the parents identify at their us and pathologists helped speech-language who the Pittsburgh of to thanks sincere Our needs. adjustment social and language context the speech, be in associated will stress improved challenge linguistic child’s clinical address as a a best including deficit of speech, that stress of techniques a progress, intervention apraxia support determine childhood reference to in to of continue provide feature studies childhood descriptive are will such core and If a studies of speakers, approaches typical additional acquisition such from studies computerized samples include Several use genetics that needs explore speech. methods to molecular used Research of be in can control. apraxia that task inherited relationships stress motor an lexical of some a genotype-phenotype relatively speech construct of least the cross-validation at of and with in by development consistent of utility stress be disorder apraxia lexical to potential of proposed suspected praxis realization is the with sAOS inconsistent with the support children speakers of identify study source to The this speech. markers of acoustic findings straightforward primary The error variable unitary and a expression as as of proposed speech severity of are variable apraxia parsimony with childhood to praxis topology. of speech appeals concept of several comparison alternative disorder in the these the Thus, speech in for 1999). perspective, after Robb, support well observed subtypes Kessler persists is and a it Piggott that prosody speech, to and (cf. of inappropriate sAOS normalized with apraxia have that children childhood errors of indicating in attempts tenable data speech not earliest on is in chance based perspective discussed causal mostly treatment- was to this speech or of that addition compensatory apraxia suggest deficits childhood Shriberg latter (in speech in in that This deficits detail prosodic typically possibility deficits). of parsimony (i.e. prosody view other causal The mediated the are compensatory causes other that involved. to variable data lead one The of as that columns perceived is associated. for association) concept variables highly explanatory common segmental this a more seek would or criterion one had novdb ihro oho h netgtrgop,egtpriiat (89 participants eight in groups, investigator expression the of of both variability fashion. or Mendelian as either in by well inherited involved disorder (as monogenetic concept topology a the with transmitted, in consistent genetically expression is be severity) to of likely variability is speech of of apraxia as Particularly 570 oiei al hto h iepriiat hs teswsconsidered was stress whose participants nine the of that 2 table in Notice Acknowledgements Conclusion tal. et 19c.Svrltpso one-vdnewr fee to offered were counter-evidence of types Several (1997c). .D Shriberg D. L. tal et . % also ) Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 E G B G G C A A H A G G C H C H D B ainlIsiueo efesadOhrCmuiaieDsres NIDCD Disorders, Communicative Other and Deafness DC00496. on Institute National A ISHOP ELTON DWARDS RARY ARUSO AMPBELL YRES USTIN LCOCK LCOCK AYDEN ANSEN ALL UYETTE OFFMAN OFFMAN OFFMAN ERNSBACHER AVIS .K,J K., P. , .L,J L., B. , .J,1985, J., A. , .V . 02 oo mauiyadseicsec n agaeimpairment: language and speech specific and immaturity Motor 2002, M., V. D. , .A,1993, A., M. , .adS and D. , S 25–46. nweg ect npoooia disorders. phonological Research in Hearing deficits knowledge 03 iaea ri bomlte soitdwt oiatyihrtdvra and verbal inherited dominantly with associated dyspraxia. abnormalities orofacial brain Bilateral 2003, ogesfrteSuyo hl agaeadteSmoimo eerhi Child in Research on Symposium July. the WI, and Madison, Language Child Disorders, of Language Study the for Congress Children peh nN .Ls (Ed.), Lass J. practice N. In speech. ypai nihrtdsec n agaeipimn n curddysphasia. acquired and impairment language and Language speech and Brain inherited in dyspraxia n iigaiiisi neie pehadlnug impairment. language and speech inherited in abilities Language timing and noi,T:TePyhlgclCorporation). Psychological The TX: Antonio, peh eemnr fdfeeta diagnosis. differential of determiners speech: hoyadciia practice clinical and Theory eh e.N.3(hnlg rjc,WimnCne,Uiest fWisconsin- of University Center, (SDCS) Waisman System Project, Classification (Phonology Disorders 3 Madison). No. Speech Rep. the Tech. using competence articulation agaeipimn n pehdfiis ieai,aosi,adtranscription and acoustic, kinematic, deficits: speech and evidence. impairment language pcrmdsre:arsac yohss nulse manuscript. Unpublished hypothesis. research a disorder: spectrum structure vdnefracmo eei basis. genetic 63. common a for evidence adults. ihglcoamafo nusree population. unscreened an from galactosaemia with pai fSec,Sotdl,A,March. AZ, Scottsdale, Speech, of Apraxia transition and timing syllabic ulsigGroup). Publishing esr nerto International). Integration Sensory . S E., , .J n S and J. A. , .J,P J., K. , P J., K. , .W,H W., T. , .adS and D. , KJELDAL .W n D and W. T. , . F J., , .adM and L. , specific with children C in L., production speech , on influences Prosodic 1999, L., , .F,2002, F., T. , References ALMOND .A n G and A. M. , ora fSec,Lnug,adHaigResearch Hearing and Language, Speech, of Journal oue5(e ok cdmcPes,p.1–49. pp. Press), Academic York: (New 5 Volume , ORDAN AKIELSKI ae rsne tte20 on ofrneo h 9 the of Conference Joint 2002 the at presented Paper . OURAKIS NwYr:Thieme). York: (New ASSINGHAM , ASSINGHAM . 96 erpyhlgcladlnusi olwu tde fchildren of studies follow-up linguistic and Neuropsychological 1996, O., , ora fSec,Lnug,adHaigResearch Hearing and Language, Speech, of Journal HAKRABORTY 75 ENRICHSEN QUARE HRIBERG TRAND 34–46. , ALIN .S n R and S. L. , .H,W H., C. , eeomna ypai n dl-ne Apraxia Adult-onset and Dyspraxia Developmental h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The IEDRICH eeomna oo pehDisorders Speech Motor Developmental .J n M and J. K. , pai fsec ncide:Apiaydfii fita n inter- and intra- of deficit primary A children: in speech of Apraxia , . B M., , . 1999, P., , . 99 erclefcso pehmvmnsi hlrnand children in movements speech on effects Metrical 1999, C., , 42 .A,1999, A., E. , , .E,W E., R. , .E,W E., R. , ua ri Mapping, Brain Human .D,1996, D., L. , 169–186. , OLDSMITH 75 . R B., , .adV and R. , .M,18,Aciia eiwo eeomna pai of apraxia developmental of review critical A 1981, M., W. , 17–33. , ATKINS ECKMAN ae rsne tte20 ypsu nChildhood on Symposium 2002 the at presented Paper . Asi,T:Pro-Ed). TX: (Austin, ASMUSSEN OBIN eblMtrPouto sesetfrChildren for Assessment Production Motor Verbal pehadLnug:Avne nbscrsac and research basic in Advances Language: and Speech ATKINS ATKINS .H,20,Twr ypai utp fautism of subtype dyspraxic a Toward 2002, H., H. , ARQUARDT .E,V E., K. , lnclMngmn fMtrSec iodr in Disorders Speech Motor of Management Clinical .A,1993, A., D. , .E n F and E. M. , INK .E n V and E. K. , mrcnJunlo eia Genetics Medical of Journal American iepnrfrnedt o e esrsof measures ten for data reference Lifespan ,K.E.andV .K,C K., R. , . 2002, L., , ARGHA .P,19,Dvlpetlarxaof apraxia Developmental 1998, P., T. , 18 lnclLnusisadPhonetics and Linguistics Clinical , ora fSec,Lnug,and Language, Speech, of Journal ARLING 194–200 -K eeomna pai fSpeech: of Apraxia Developmental OX ARGHA ARGHA HADEM hsooi nie fprosodic of indices Physiologic caPædiatrica Acta .A,19,Characterizing 1999, A., R. , . A A., , . SnDeo A Singular CA: Diego, (San -K -K .adG and F. , , HADEM HADEM 42 , NDRESSEN 1003–1015. , 42 1499–1517. , . 00,Pitch 2000b, F., , . 00,Oral 2000a, F., , Trac,CA: (Torrance, th , ADIAN 85 International 1197–201. , .B and B. A. , ri and Brain , 114 ,D.G., 56– , , (San 571 12 , , Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 L M L S L L O M M M S K K R S M S L P K L O S 572 HRIBERG CHWARTZ CHICK CHEFFER EMEL IGGOTT OVE EWIS EWIS EVELT AI AI OBBINS ZANNE DELL EHOE EHOE EHOE ORLEY C C C C G C N G .S . F L., S. C. , F L., S. C. , ABE .J n W and J. R. , EIL REGOR REGOR .A,F A., B. , F A., B. , . W E., , .H n S and H. K. , . 98 upr o erclsrs hoyi tesacquisition. S stress productions. M., in word , theory stress children’s metrical for English-speaking Support in 1998, M., patterns , error Stress 1997, M., , .H,K H., J. , .J . 1989, M., J. W. , 105–126. rtclitra n oaiaino rnlctosascae ihsec and speech with the associated of translocations characterization genomic of 7q31: localization human on disorder. and region language SPCH1 interval The critical 2000, P., A. P S., .V n I and V. D. okeddmi eei uae nasvr pehadlnug disorder. language and speech severe a in mutated is gene Nature forkhead-domain A ucpiiiylcso q1 aucitsbitdfrpublication. for submitted Manuscript for 7q31. Evidence on disorder: speech-sound locus with susceptibility families a of analysis association and Linkage H ntegnrlsec-mardpopulation? speech-impaired general the in mrcnSec-agaeHaigAscain e ren,L,November. LA, Orleans, New Association, Speech-Language-Hearing speech American of apraxia developmental on hlrnsspeech. children’s young Blioe D ilas&Wilkins). & Williams MD: (Baltimore, ypsu nCidodArxao peh ctsae Z March. AZ, Scottsdale, Speech, of Apraxia Childhood on Symposium phrases. A Butterworth-Heinemann). MA: po hlrnwt pai fspeech. of 9 apraxia the with children of up accuracy. n Phonetics and Phonetics and Linguistics Clinical maret osrit nsrs assignment. stress 55–69. on Constraints impairment: on children. young dlswt pai fspeech. of apraxia with adults nLnug Disorders Language in plpi Disorders Epileptic ( nRsac nCidLnug iodr,Mdsn I July. WI, Madison, Disorders, Language Child in Research on ifrnilDanssadTeteto hlrnwt pehDisorder Speech 91–109. pp. with Group), Children Publishing of Singular Treatment CA: and Diagnosis Differential Press). . 95 h erhfrdvlpetlvra ypai.I .Dd (Ed.), Dodd B. In dyspraxia. verbal developmental for search The 1995, A., , .R,2002, R., M. , CELF3 .adK and J. , .L n K and L. G. , .E,1972, E., M. , . R P., , ANSEN .D,A D., L. , .E,20,Atsmldmnn oadceies ihsec dyspraxia. speech with epilepsy rolandic dominant Autosomal 2000, E., I. , .G n G and G. R. , .K,19,Pooi nune ncide’ rmaia morphology. grammatical children’s in influences Prosodic 1997, K., K. , .K n J and K. K. , OVEY th IIG TOEL , nentoa ogesfrteSuyo hl agaeadteSymposium the and Language Child of Study the for Congress International OSENTHAL REEBAIRN ISHER ,tideiin(e ok scooia oprto,Hror Brace). Harcourt Corporation, Psychological York: (New edition third ), . F A., , ISHER 413 REEBAIRN .H n S and H. E. , ora fSec,Lnug,adHaigResearch Hearing and Language, Speech, of Journal UNDTZ . J S., , ora fSec n ern Research Hearing and Speech of Journal LEE EBB -G 519–523. , RAM .E,H E., S. , , .E,H E., S. , AMMON HRIBERG . 97 lnclassmn foohrnelmtrdvlpetin development motor oropharyngeal of assessment Clinical 1987, T., , .G,2001, G., W. , YENGAR 12 h eeomn n iodr fSec nChildhood in Speech of Disorders and Development The AMISON REEBAIRN -K ora fSec n ern Disorders Hearing and Speech of Journal .A,H A., L. , paig rmitnint articulation to intention From Speaking: h osrc farxao speech of apraxia of construct The ESSLER .M n K and M. D. , 1–24. , .B n M and B. J. , .A,T A., L. , OHNSON , LUGE OFFMAN mrcnJunlo ua Genetics Human of Journal American 2 ECORD .adB and C. , Spl ) S19–S22. 1), (Suppl. , .D,20,Pooyviecaatrsiso hlrnand children of characteristics Prosody-voice 2001, D., L. , . 2001, S., , URST .C,G C., D. , URST 17 .M,T M., A. , R ora fSec n ern Research Hearing and Speech of Journal .A,L A., L. , 63–75. , .C,19,Tohi epaeuei al od and words early in use template Trochaic 1997, C., A. , ANSEN .D Shriberg D. L. . 95 erclpten fwrsadproduction and words of patterns Metrical 1995, L., , OBB AYLOR V A., J. , . 1995, W., , .A,L A., J. , erlg o h pehlnug Pathologist Speech-language the for Neurology C . 99 rsdcfaue ffmla language familial of features Prosodic 1999, M., , lnclLnusisadPhonetics and Linguistics Clinical L ae rsne tteAna ovnino the of Convention Annual the at presented Paper . UDER .C n T and C. A. , WIATKOWSKI , EOD REEN .G,H G., H. , 11 IWARI ae rsne tte20 on ofrneof Conference Joint 2002 the at presented Paper EWIS aiypdgeso hlrnwt suspected with children of pedigrees Family ARGHA 389–409. , . 98 etrso eeomna dyspraxia developmental of Features 1998, S., , EVY .H,19,Aosi orltso tesin stress of correlates Acoustic 1995, H., E. , .D,V D., E. , lnclEauto fLnug Fundamentals Language of Evaluation Clinical .K,T K., H. , .R,H R., E. , .A n I and A. B. , -K tal et ANSEN . 97,Dvlpetlarxaof apraxia Developmental 1997a, J., , lnclLnusisadPhonetics and Linguistics Clinical AYLOR HADEM oi hnarc tLogopaedica et Phoniatrica Folia ARGHA . , AYLOR ODGSON . S A., , 38 .G,2002, G., H. , ae rsne tte2002 the at presented Paper . .adM and F. , 864–888. , -K YENGAR , Cmrde A h MIT The MA: (Cambridge, , .G,S G., H. , HRIBERG 67 HADEM 52 . F S., , 357–368. , , 271–277. , 40 .K,submitted, K., S. , ONACO , 1220–1231. , OX .adM and F. , lnclLinguistics Clinical , 15 .D,D D., L. , colaefollow- School-age 38 HRIBERG . J M., , 275–307. , 338–350. , hr edition third , .P,2001, P., A. , SnDiego, (San (Woburn, EREMIAH .D., L. , AWSON ONACO Topics , , 12 51 , , , , , Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S NOW NOW NOW MITH KINDER KINDER KINDER KINDER KINDER HRIBERG HRIBERG HRIBERG HRIBERG HRIBERG HRIBERG HRIBERG HRIBERG HRIBERG . 98,Pooi akr fsnatcbudre ntesec f4-year-old of speech the in boundaries syntactic of markers Prosodic of study 1998a, comparative speech. D., a child , English: in early timing in speech of intonation acquisition and Children’s 1997, lengthening D., syllable , Phrase-final 1994, D., , .L,17,Tmoa set fEgihsec rdcin developmental a production: speech English of aspects Temporal 1978, L., B. , h pehDsresCasfiainSse SC) xesosadlifespan and extensions (SDCS): System Classification Disorders data. reference Speech The . N M., 35–56. peh I oadadansi marker. diagnostic a Research Toward II. speech: ecie eia teserr ncide ihdvlpetlarxao speech. of apraxia developmental with children Pathology Speech-Language in Medical errors of Journal stress lexical perceived h rsd-oc cenn rfie(VP:Pyhmti aaadreference and data Psychometric (PVSP): Wisconsin-Madison). of profile University children for screening information prosody-voice The ora fSec,Lnug,adHaigResearch data. Hearing reliability and and Language, extensions metric: Speech, (PCC) of Correct Journal Consonants of Percentage The igotcmre o hlho pai fsec:tecefiin fvrainratio. variation of coefficient the Phonetics speech: and of Linguistics apraxia Clinical childhood for marker diagnostic peh I.Asbyemre yiaporaestress. inappropriate Research by Hearing marked and subtype A III. speech: eia n etnilsrs ncide ihdvlpetlarxao speech. of apraxia Pathology developmental Speech-Language with Medical children in of stress sentential and lexical lnclprofile. clinical hlrnwt omladdsree agaedevelopment. language disordered Research Hearing and and normal Language with children lengthening. vowel syllable final and time onset voice Research Hearing and Speech of Journal ae rsne tteAna ovnino h mrcnSpeech-Language- American the speech of of Convention apraxia Annual DC. developmental Washington, the in Association, errors at Hearing articulatory presented and Paper prosodic of relationship ovnino h mrcnSec-agaeHaigAscain Washington Association, Speech-Language-Hearing American speech the DC. of of apraxia Convention developmental of characteristics eurn ttsmdawt fuin w ersetv studies. retrospective two Research effusion: Hearing and with Language, media otitis recurrent ae rsne tteAna ovnino h mrcnSpeech-Language- American the of November. speech Convention LA, of Annual Orleans, apraxia New developmental the with Association, at children Hearing in presented prosody on Paper accuracy articulatory of peh .Dsrpieperspectives. Descriptive Research I. speech: perspective. nvriyo Wisconsin-Madison). speech of University of apraxia -M -M -M S A., , C A., , .D n M and D. L. , K D., L. , K and D. L. , G D., L. , F D., L. , A D., L. , A D., L. , A D., L. , A D., L. , EREDITH EREDITH EREDITH ELLIS TRAND , , ONNAGHAN 40 40 .adB and R. , REEN LIPSEN . S A., , S E., A. , S E., A. , ora fPhonetics of Journal USTIN USTIN 286–312. , 273–285. , WIATKOWSKI RAM RAM .A n M and A. E. , h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The ora fSec,Lnug,adHaigResearch Hearing and Language, Speech, of Journal ora fSec n ern Research Hearing and Speech of Journal C .R,C R., J. , WIATKOWSKI .M n K and M. D. , .M n K and M. D. , S . L D., , . L D., , ,P.J TOEL WEENY eh e.N.1 PoooyPoet asa Center, Waisman Project, (Phonology 11 No. Rep. Tech. , . S K., , LOCK , TOEL -G 40 R eh e.N.1(hnlg rjc,WimnCenter, Waisman Project, (Phonology 1 No. Rep. Tech. , TOEL . R J., , ,T ., EWIS EWIS .L,2002, L., J. , 313–337. , AMPBELL AMMON . 00 ikfrsec iodrascae ihearly with associated disorder speech for Risk 2000, M., , -G TRAND IGNEREY HIELKE -G . 94 eeomna hnlgcldsresI a I: disorders phonological Developmental 1994, J., , .A,M A., B. , .A,M A., B. , AMMON ASMUSSEN AMMON , , , WIATKOWSKI WIATKOWSKI , . W C., , 41 .adB and E. , 6 43 .F,M F., T. , 17 37–67. , . K H., , 1158–1170. , 79–99. , 575–595. , . 99 ecpuladaosi nlssof analysis acoustic and Perceptual 1999, M., , . W C., , ora fSec,Lnug,adHearing and Language, Speech, of Journal lsicto n icasfiaino childhood of misclassification and Classification .adB and C. , , C C , RIGHT 7 . L C., , S ora fSec,Lnug,adHearing and Language, Speech, of Journal S 133–144. , 37 WEENY WEENY WIATKOWSKI C 831–840. , RIGHT . 97,Dvlpetlarxaof apraxia Developmental 1997b, J., , S . 97,Dvlpetlarxaof apraxia Developmental 1997c, J., , ETZ .adS and R. , WEENY , OF 4 . 00 cutccreae of correlates Acoustic 2000, S., , .L n W and L. J. , .L n W and L. J. , 279–284. , ae rsne tteAnnual the at presented Paper . .L n M and L. G. , .adB and R. , , ETZ .L n S and L. J. , 40 ora fCidLanguage Child of Journal ora fSec,Language, Speech, of Journal . K J., , .K,2000, K., S. , 708–722. , , TRAND 37 1100–1126. , ERTOY ETZ . 2001, E., , ILSON ILSON ora fSpeech, of Journal CHEER ora fSpeech, of Journal .K,2000, K., S. , ILLER , . K M., , .L,1997b, L., D. , 40 .L,1997a, L., D. , .F,1992, F., J. , 723–740. , . 03 A 2003, A., , Quantifying h effects The ATCHER Journal , 573 The 24 , , . . Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 06:46 9 July 2007 Y W W V V W V V T S S T W 574 S TACKHOUSE TACKHOUSE NOW HOMPSON INGLY ELLEMAN ELLEMAN ARGHA ARGHA OSS IIG ATKINS ATKINS ATKINS ,K.A.andD .H,S H., E. , . 98,Apoiec con fslal euto nerysec development: speech early in reduction syllable of account prominence A 1998b, D., , .M n A and M. B. , Brace). . G M., C F Fundamentals-Preschool neie pehadlnug iodr oprsnwt naqie aphasia. acquired an with comparison disorder: 125 language and speech inherited nlsso nihrtdsec n agaedsre:srcua ri abnormalities. brain structural disorder: language and speech Brain inherited an of analysis rxcadnneblcgiiedfiisi ag aiywt eeial transmitted genetically a with disorder. family large language a and in deficits speech cognitive nonverbal and Praxic 930–933. pehadlnug disorder. 12695–12700. language and speech ri bomlte soitdwt eei iodro pehadlanguage. and speech of disorder genetic Genetics a Human of with Journal associated American abnormalities brain eetv articulation. defective disorders. upce eeomna pai fspeech. of Research apraxia Hearing developmental suspected .J as .V cenls .L otenadD .Ydr(Eds), Yoder E. D. and Northern L. Audiology J. and McReynolds, Pathology V. Speech-language L. Lass, J. N. n .W ako (Eds), populations Bankson special with W. intervention N. and hl Development Child ora fDsreso Communication of Disorders of Journal h hl’ rsdcpoooyof phonology prosodic child’s the ern Research Hearing -K -K RISTON .E,V E., K. , G E., K. , D E., K. , ONNELLY .L n S and L. S. , S and L. S. , .K,18,Atclto iodr ntecidwt ergncptooy In pathology. neurogenic with child the in disorders Articulation 1988, K., C. , 452–464. , HADEM HADEM . 92 eeomna ebldsrxaI eiwadcritique. and review W and a J. I: , dyspraxia verbal Developmental 1992, J., , , ADIAN 125 .J,F J., K. , ECORD 465–478. , . W F., , W F., , uoenJunlo iodr fCommunication of Disorders of Journal European . F A., , ARGHA RONKERS ADIAN ARLEY .G n P and G. D. , LLEN HRIBERG h eia tesrtoi hlho AOS childhood in ratio stress lexical The TRAND ELLS .adS and W. , RACKOWIAK , , ATKINS RACKOWIAK .G n V and G. D. , -K , .L,17,Dvlpetlarxao pehi hlrnwith children in speech of apraxia Developmental 1974, L., F. , ATKINS 42 41 .D,17,Dvlpeto pehtmn oto nchildren. in control timing speech of Development 1975, D., G. , 46 . 93 scoigitcassmn fdvlpetlspeech developmental of assessment Psycholinguistic 1993, B., , .adV and N. , HADEM 1444–1460. , 1171–1184. , 186–194. , ora fSec n ern Research Hearing and Speech of Journal . 94 eeomna ebldsrxa nJ .Bernthal E. J. In dyspraxia. verbal Developmental 1994, K., , .D,19,Mtia nlsso h peho hlrnwith children of speech the of analysis Metrical 1999, D., L. , ( . A K., , CELF-P .E,P E., K. , . A F., , ASSINGHAM .S . M J., S. R. , .S . F J., S. R. , EMEL ARGHA rceig fteNtoa cdm fSciences of Academy National the of Proceedings rceig fteNtoa cdm fSciences of Academy National the of Proceedings LCOCK ARGHA hl hnlg:Caatrsis seset and assessment, Characteristics, Phonology: Child NwYr:PyhlgclCroain Harcourt Corporation, Psychological York: (New ) tiger SHBURNER . 1992, E., , NwYr:Tim) p 110–139. pp. Thieme), York: (New RICE , -K . F K., , -K 65 , and .E,19,Nua ai fa inherited an of basis Neural 1998, E., R. , HADEM 27 HADEM 1215–1221. , ISHKIN .J,A J., C. , RISTON Trno CDce n.,p.548–591. pp. Inc.), Decker BC (Toronto: 19–34. , giraffe LETCHER . P J., , . 02 eaiua nlsso an of analysis Behavioural 2002, F., , .adG and M. , ora fSec,Lnug,and Language, Speech, of Journal . 99 ucinladstructural and Functional 1999, F., , .J,P J., K. , lnclEauto fLanguage of Evaluation Clinical . ASSINGHAM ora fSec,Lnug,and Language, Speech, of Journal SHBURNER .adP and P. , EMBREY ADIAN , 28 .E,C E., R. , . A J., , ASSINGHAM , 331–348. , 17 .G,20,MRI 2002, G., D. , .E,M E., M. , 399–416. , LCOCK ONNELLY adokof Handbook . 1995, R., , European .J., K. , ISHKIN Brain , , A., , 92 95 , , , ,