logo

Last Update

This profile was last updated on 8/16/2017 and contains contributions from the  Zoominfo Community.

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

Background Information

Employment History

Programme Director - English

St Mary's University


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)


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.


Emerald Bookshop - About Emerald Books

books.emeraldinsight.com [cached]

- Signals & Systems (2nd ed.) by Professor Stuart Rosen and Professor Peter Howell, University College London, UK.


International Stammering Awareness Day: 22nd October - British Stammering Association

www.stammering.org [cached]

Talk by Professor Peter Howell, UCL.
To mark Stammering Awareness Day (22 October) Professor Howell will describe our current state of knowledge about the assessment of this condition, who might be affected, how it is most likely to start in childhood, and how recent work has been successful in predicting which young children will recover by teenage..."


Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience

www.icn.ucl.ac.uk [cached]

Prof Peter Howell


www.stamres.psychol.ucl.ac.uk

Peter Howell
University College London Gower St., London WC1E 6BT England Email p.howell@ucl.ac.uk Peter Howell Department of Psychology 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. London and San Diego: Academic Press. PETER HOWELL These can be used for illustrative and teaching purposes or, like the data reported in the previous issue by Howell and Huckvale (2004), for audio, perceptual or other analysis that would be welcomed as submissions to Stammering Research. The description of the software is included so that anyone with a PC reading Howell's (2004) review or reading and listening to the demonstrations of the effects of FSF in Howell, Davis, Bartrip and Wormald (2004) (that also appears in this issue of Stammering Research) can access and try out these manipulations immediately. A workshop conference has been arranged for June 2005 which will include tutorials describing ways to deal with the UCLASS material described in Howell and Huckvale (2004) with talks by Rose and MacWhinney (on CHILDES) and Huckvale (on SFS). This has been timed to precede the Oxford Dysfluency Conference so people can attend both. Details of both conferences appear at the end of this issue. Peter Howell, September, 2004 Howell, P. (2004). Effects of delayed auditory feedback and frequency-shifted feedback on speech control and some potentials for future development of prosthetic aids for stammering. Stammering Research, 1, 31-46. Howell, P., Davis, S., Bartrip, J., & Wormald, L. (2004). Effectiveness of frequency shifted feedback on easy and hard sections of speech. Includes original audio data. Stammering Research, 1, 309-315. Howell, P., El,Yaniv, N., & Powell, D.J. (1987). Factors affecting fluency in stutterers when speaking under altered auditory feedback. In H. Peters and W. Hulstijn (Eds.). Speech Motor Dynamics in Stuttering, 361,369. New York: Springer Press. Howell, P. & Huckvale, M. (2004) Facilities to assist people to research into stammered speech. Stammering Research, 1, 130-242. Some research of an experimental nature has already been carried out into the relationship between interview style (formal as opposed to casual) and level of dysfluency (Howell, Kapoor, & Rustin, 1997)., and future conversation analytic work has the potential to build on this. I have alluded to many of these possible avenues of exploration throughout the article, but some bear repeating here. Howell, P. (2004). Effects of delayed auditory feedback and frequency-shifted feedback on speech control and some potentials for future development of prosthetic aids for stammering. Stammering Research, 1, 31-46. Howell, P. & Huckvale, M. (2004) Facilities to assist people to research into stammered speech. Stammering Research, 1, 130-242. Howell, P., Au-Yeung, J., & Sackin, S. (1999). Exchange of stuttering from function words to content words with age. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 345-354. Howell, P. Kapoor, A., & Rustin L. (1997). The effects of formal and casual interview styles on stuttering incidence. In Speech Production: Motor Control, Brain Research and Fluency Disorders. Pp. 515-520.


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