Literature DB >> 17344547

Children with specific language impairments perceive speech most categorically when tokens are natural and meaningful.

Jeffry A Coady1, Julia L Evans, Elina Mainela-Arnold, Keith R Kluender.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine perceptual deficits as a potential underlying cause of specific language impairments (SLI).
METHOD: Twenty-one children with SLI (8;7-11;11 [years;months]) and 21 age-matched controls participated in categorical perception tasks using four series of syllables for which perceived syllable-initial voicing varied. Series were either words or abstract nonword syllables and either synthesized or high-quality edited natural utterances. Children identified and discriminated (a) digitally edited tokens of naturally spoken "bowl"-"pole", (b) synthesized renditions of "bowl"-"pole", (c) natural "ba"-"pa", and (d) synthetic "ba"-"pa".
RESULTS: Identification crossover locations were the same for both groups of children, but there was modestly less accuracy on unambiguous endpoints for children with SLI. Planned comparisons revealed these effects to be limited to synthesized speech. Children with SLI showed overall reduced discrimination, but these effects were limited to abstract nonword syllables.
CONCLUSION: Overall, children with SLI perceived naturally spoken real words comparably to age-matched peers but showed impaired identification and discrimination of synthetic speech and of abstract syllables. Poor performance on speech perception tasks may result from task demands and stimulus properties, not perceptual deficits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17344547      PMCID: PMC5538729          DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/004)

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


  41 in total

1.  Cognitive approaches to the development of short-term memory.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Categorical perception of speech by children with specific language impairments.

Authors:  Jeffry A Coady; Keith R Kluender; Julia L Evans
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Lexical neighborhood effects in phonetic processing.

Authors:  R S Newman; J R Sawusch; P A Luce
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  The TRACE model of speech perception.

Authors:  J L McClelland; J L Elman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Developmental aphasia: rate of auditory processing and selective impairment of consonant perception.

Authors:  P Tallal; M Piercy
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 3.139

6.  Developmental aphasia: impaired rate of non-verbal processing as a function of sensory modality.

Authors:  P Tallal; M Piercy
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1973-10       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception.

Authors:  W F Ganong
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Specific language impairment: a deficit in grammar or processing?

Authors:  M F Joanisse; M S Seidenberg
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1998-07-01       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  Fine-grained auditory discrimination in normal children and children with language-learning problems.

Authors:  L L Elliott; M A Hammer; M E Scholl
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1989-03

10.  Perception of stop consonants in children with expressive and receptive-expressive language impairments.

Authors:  R E Stark; J M Heinz
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1996-08
View more
  22 in total

1.  Individual differences in language ability are related to variation in word recognition, not speech perception: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Cheyenne Munson; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Contextual Influences on Phonetic Categorization in School-Aged Children.

Authors:  Jean A Campbell; Heather L McSherry; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  Front Commun (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-09-19

3.  Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 4.  Uses and interpretations of non-word repetition tasks in children with and without specific language impairments (SLI).

Authors:  Jeffry A Coady; Julia L Evans
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2008 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  Speech categorization develops slowly through adolescence.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ani Danelz; Hannah Rigler; Michael Seedorff
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2018-06-28

6.  A nonword repetition task for speakers with misarticulations: the Syllable Repetition Task (SRT).

Authors:  Lawrence D Shriberg; Heather L Lohmeier; Thomas F Campbell; Christine A Dollaghan; Jordan R Green; Christopher A Moore
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ashley Farris-Trimble; Hannah Rigler
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-09-14

8.  Perception of Medial Consonants by Children With and Without Speech and Language Disorders: A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Françoise Brosseau-Lapré; Jennifer Schumaker; Keith R Kluender
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.408

9.  Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Vicki M Samelson; Sung Hee Lee; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Spectral vs. temporal auditory processing in specific language impairment: a developmental ERP study.

Authors:  R Ceponiene; A Cummings; B Wulfeck; A Ballantyne; J Townsend
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 2.381

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.