Literature DB >> 16378483

Multiple looks in speech sound discrimination in adults.

Rachael Frush Holt1, Arlene Earley Carney.   

Abstract

N. F. Viemeister and G. H. Wakefield's (1991) multiple looks hypothesis is a theoretical approach from the psychoacoustic literature that has promise for bridging the gap between results from speech perception research and results from psychoacoustic research. This hypothesis accounts for sensory detection data and predicts that if the "looks" at a stimulus are independent and information is combined optimally, sensitivity should increase for 2 pulses relative to 1 pulse. Specifically, d' (a bias-free measure of sensitivity) for 2 pulses should be larger than d' for 1 pulse. One speech discrimination paradigm that presents stimuli with multiple presentations is the change/no-change procedure. On a change trial, the standard and comparison stimuli differ; on a no-change trial, they are the same. Normal-hearing adults were tested using the change/no-change procedure with 3 consonant-vowel minimal pairs in combinations of 1, 2, and 4 repetitions of standard and comparison stimuli at various signal-to-noise ratios. If multiple looks extend to this procedure, performance should increase with higher repetition numbers. Performance increased with more presentations of the speech contrasts tested. The multiple looks hypothesis predicted performance better at low repetition numbers when performance was near d' values of 1.0 than at higher repetition numbers and higher performance levels.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16378483      PMCID: PMC3596422          DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/064)

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  21 in total

1.  Auditory temporal integration and the power function model.

Authors:  G M Gerken; V K Bhat; M Hutchison-Clutter
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule.

Authors:  J S Logan; B G Greene; D B Pisoni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Similarities between tactual and auditory speech perception.

Authors:  R E Eilers; O Ozdamar; D K Oller; E Miskiel; R Urbano
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1988-03

4.  Discrimination and response bias for CV syllables differing in voice onset time among children and adults.

Authors:  L L Elliott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Speech perception ability and psychophysical tuning curves in hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  P G Stelmachowicz; W Jesteadt; M P Gorga; J Mott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Developmental differences in identifying and discriminating CV syllables.

Authors:  L L Elliott; C Longinotti; D Meyer; I Raz; K Zucker
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Children's phoneme identification in reverberation and noise.

Authors:  C E Johnson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Consonant confusions in patients with sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  R C Bilger; M D Wang
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1976-12

9.  Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: effects of high-frequency compensation.

Authors:  M W Skinner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Developmental changes in speech discrimination in infants.

Authors:  R E Eilers; W R Wilson; J M Moore
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1977-12
View more
  11 in total

1.  Assessing toddlers' speech-sound discrimination.

Authors:  Rachael Frush Holt; Kaylah Lalonde
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 1.675

2.  Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Larry E Humes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: "Perceptual Attention" Versus "Auditory Sensitivity".

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Eric Tarr; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; D Bradley Welling; Antoine J Shahin; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Cognitive and linguistic sources of variance in 2-year-olds’ speech-sound discrimination: a preliminary investigation.

Authors:  Kaylah Lalonde; Rachael Frush Holt
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Developmental effects of multiple looks in speech sound discrimination.

Authors:  Rachael Frush Holt; Arlene Earley Carney
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Preschoolers benefit from visually salient speech cues.

Authors:  Kaylah Lalonde; Rachael Frush Holt
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Level-dependent changes in perception of speech envelope cues.

Authors:  Judy R Dubno; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Xin Wang; Amy R Horwitz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-08-08

9.  Weighting of Acoustic Cues to a Manner Distinction by Children With and Without Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Susan Nittrouer; Joanna H Lowenstein
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  All cues are not created equal: the case for facilitating the acquisition of typical weighting strategies in children with hearing loss.

Authors:  Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.