Need more? Try out  Advanced Search (20+ criteria)»

Last Update

is this you? Claim your profile.

Wrong Peter Howell?

Peter D. Howell

Professor

University College London

HQ Phone:  +44 20 7679 2000

Direct Phone: +44 ** **** ****direct phone

Email: p***@***.uk

GET ZOOMINFO GROW

+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month

Please agree to the terms and conditions.

I agree to the  Terms of Service and  Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Grow at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

THANK YOU FOR DOWNLOADING!

computers
  • 1.Download
    ZoomInfo Grow
    v sign
  • 2.Run Installation
    Wizard
  • 3.Check your inbox to
    Sign in to ZoomInfo Grow

I agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Community Edition at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

University College London

Gower St.

London, Greater London,WC1E 6BT

United Kingdom

Company Description

The Research Department of Women's Cancer, at University College London (UCL), has an exceptionally dedicated group of academics and clinicians to conduct multidisciplinary research into women specific cancers. They strive to create clinical interventions and ... more.

Find other employees at this company (23,528)

Background Information

Employment History

Lecturer In English Lit and Director of the Gothic MA

St Mary's University College


Lecturer In Prosthetics

Guy


Affiliations

International Stuttering Association

Advisory Board


Programme

Board Member


Christ Church

Junior Research Fellow


International Stuttering Association

Board Member


Education

Bachelors degree

Physics

Chelsea College


MA


PhD


Web References(120 Total References)


SpeechPeople

banana.psychol.ucl.ac.uk [cached]

Pete Howell
Peter Howell


UCL Division of Psychology & Language Sciences

www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk [cached]

Peter Howell,
Professor in Dept. Cognitive, Perceptual & Brain Sciences Address: University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT. Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7679 7566 Email: p.howell@ucl.ac.uk Speech perception and production.


UCL Division of Psychology & Language Sciences

ftp.phon.ucl.ac.uk [cached]

Peter Howell,Professor in Dept. Cognitive, Perceptual & Brain SciencesAddress: University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT.Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7679 7566 Email: p.howell@ucl.ac.ukSpeech perception and production.


Staff by Position

garbo.psychol.ucl.ac.uk [cached]

Peter Howell


V1I1

www.stamres.psychol.ucl.ac.uk [cached]

Peter Howell
Peter Howell Department of Psychology Peter Howell 1, John Smith2, and John Doe 3 Howell, P. (2002). Howell, P., & Sackin, S. (2002). Timing interference to speech in altered listening conditions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 111, 2842-2852. Rosen, S., & Howell, P. (1991). Signals and Systems for Speech and Hearing . PETER HOWELL PETER HOWELL PETER HOWELL PETER HOWELL Peter Howell Thomas, C., & Howell, P. (2001). Assessing efficacy of stuttering treatments. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 311-333. Flagging of declining or improving performance could be built into the system as Howell (2004) discusses in connection with the Hector aid. Howell, P. (2004). Peter Howell Department of Psychology, Centre for Human Communications, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, and Institute of Movement Neuroscience, University College London, Gower St., London WC1E 6BT p.howell@ucl.ac.uk Abstract. Examination of these effects in speakers who stammer was initiated by Lee (1951) for delaying, and by Howell, El-Yaniv and Powell (1987) for frequency shifting. Speakers who stammer change their voice level in the same direction as fluent speakers when noise is present and when their voice is amplified or attenuated (Howell, 1990). Thus, work on fluent speech, including papers by Borden (1979), Howell, Powell and Khan (1983), and Lane and Tranel (1971), began to question feedback interpretations of the effects of ARAI, and alternative accounts were proposed. A further conceptual problem is that the amount of phonetic information a speaker can recover about vocal output is limited because bone-conducted sound masks a speaker's phonetic output (see Howell and Powell, 1984 for a study on this issue and Howell, 2002, for an extended discussion of the problems this raises for feedback accounts). Degradation of the sound of the voice would limit the usefulness of the feedback that a speaker can recover by listening to his or her own voice, making it an unlikely source of information for use for feedback control. One question that arises if the sound of the voice does not contain phonetic information, is whether the delayed sound during DAF has to be speech to produce the disruptions to fluent speakers' speech? Howell and Archer (1984) addressed this question by transforming speech into a noise that had the same temporal structure as speech, but none of the phonetic content. Then they delayed the noise sound and compared performance of this with performance under standard DAF. The two conditions produced equivalent disruption over a range of delays. This suggests that the DAF signal does not need to be a speech sound to affect control in the same way as observed under DAF, and indicates that speech does not go through the speech comprehension system before it can be used as feedback. The disruption could arise, however, if asynchronous inputs affect operation of lower level mechanisms involved in motor control. Revisions in theory in response to the problems for a feedback account of fluent speech control . The above arguments and Howell and Archer's (1984) experimental evidence, undermine the case for auditory feedback monitoring in fluent speakers. The basic issue addressed by DRH was how to account for the disruptive effects of DAF if, as Howell and Archer's (1984) results indicate, ARAI does not send information through the speech perception system to provide information to reinitiate speech when it is in error.


Similar Profiles

city

Browse ZoomInfo's Business
Contact Directory by City

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Business People Directory

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Advanced Company Directory