Assessing priming for prosodic representations : Speaking rate, intonational phrase boundaries, and pitch accenting

We thank Candice Stanfield, Ashley Frost, and Ashley Devereux for their assistance with data collection and coding. This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC008774 and by the James S. McDonnell Foundation.Peer reviewedPostprin

Incorporation of Socioeconomic Status Indicators into Policies for the Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records

Socio-economic status (SES) has an important effect on health. Individuals with lower SES experience more chronic disease, are less likely to receive preventive care, and have shorter life expectancies. As the Affordable Care Act is implemented and increasing numbers of previously uninsured people gain access to health care, the imperative to recognize patients’ SES and develop health initiatives that account for the social determinants of health increases. Health care providers across the nation are adopting electronic health records (EHRs). Policies such as Meaningful Use offer opportunities to systematically incorporate the collection of standardized SES indicators into EHRs in ways that improve health, increase the understanding of the relationship between SES and health, and inform future policies. This paper examines the use of SES indicators in research, national surveys, and federal programs and finds adding an income question is the most feasible and optimal SES indicator for the inclusion in EHRs

Can intonational phrase structure be primed (like syntactic structure)?

In 3 experiments, we investigated whether intonational phrase structure can be primed. In all experiments, participants listened to sentences in which the presence and location of intonational phrase boundaries were manipulated such that the recording included either no intonational phrase boundaries, a boundary in a structurally dispreferred location, a boundary in a preferred location, or boundaries in both locations. In Experiment 1, participants repeated the sentences to test whether they would reproduce the prosodic structure they had just heard. Experiments 2 and 3 used a prime–target paradigm to evaluate whether the intonational phrase structure heard in the prime sentence might influence that of a novel target sentence. Experiment 1 showed that participants did repeat back sentences that they had just heard with the original intonational phrase structure, yet Experiments 2 and 3 found that exposure to intonational phrase boundaries on prime trials did not influence how a novel target sentence was prosodically phrased. These results suggest that speakers may retain the intonational phrasing of a sentence, but this effect is not long-lived and does not generalize across unrelated sentences. Furthermore, these findings provide no evidence that intonational phrase structure is formulated during a planning stage that is separate from other sources of linguistic information