The Differential Effects of Three Verbal Punishers on the Disfluencies of Normal Speakers One hundred normal subjects, divided into five groups, read aloud for 40 minutes. For the first 10 minutes (Baserate), subjects read without interruption. For the next 20 minutes (Conditioning), verbal stimuli contingent upon disfluency were delivered to three groups. One group received “wrong”; the second, “no”; and the third “huh-uh” ... Research Article
Research Article  |   September 01, 1967
The Differential Effects of Three Verbal Punishers on the Disfluencies of Normal Speakers
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Robert H. Brookshire
    University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Richard R. Martin
    University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Research Articles
Research Article   |   September 01, 1967
The Differential Effects of Three Verbal Punishers on the Disfluencies of Normal Speakers
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, September 1967, Vol. 10, 496-505. doi:10.1044/jshr.1003.496
History: Received January 1, 1967
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, September 1967, Vol. 10, 496-505. doi:10.1044/jshr.1003.496
History: Received January 1, 1967

One hundred normal subjects, divided into five groups, read aloud for 40 minutes. For the first 10 minutes (Baserate), subjects read without interruption. For the next 20 minutes (Conditioning), verbal stimuli contingent upon disfluency were delivered to three groups. One group received “wrong”; the second, “no”; and the third “huh-uh” for disfluency. A fourth group received “wrong” on a random schedule during Conditioning, while the fifth (control) received no verbal stimuli. During the last 10 minutes (Extinction), no verbal stimuli were delivered to any group. Random and Control subjects did not change disfluency rates, while subjects in all contingent conditions decreased disfluency in Conditioning. Contingent “wrong” produced the greatest decrement in disfluency, “no” the least, and “huh-uh” occupied a midpoint.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access