Literature DB >> 18664682

Voiced initial consonant perception deficits in older listeners with hearing loss and good and poor word recognition.

Susan L Phillips1, Scott J Richter, David McPherson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study examined differences in voiced consonant-vowel (CV) perception in older listeners with normal hearing and in 2 groups of older listeners with matched hearing losses: those with good and those with poor word recognition scores.
METHOD: Thirty-six participants identified CVs from an 8-item display from the natural voiced initial consonants/b, d, g, m, n, eth, v and z/in three vowel contexts (/a, o, u/) spoken by a male and a female talker.
RESULTS: The listeners with hearing loss and poor word recognition scores (WRS) made more of the same types of errors, as well as errors not made by listeners with hearing loss and good word recognition. Errors above chance rates for these listeners were highest in the context of /a/ and were similar in the contexts of /o/ and /u/. Sequential information analyses (SINFAs) verified that information was transmitted least efficiently in the context of /a/. The results yielded a list of consonant confusions unique to listeners with poor WRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Listeners with poor WRS have more difficulty identifying voiced initial consonants in CV syllables than do listeners with good WRS. These listeners made some systematic errors, but most errors were nonsystematic, perhaps due to the low level of feature information transmitted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18664682      PMCID: PMC2805899          DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0228)

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


  22 in total

1.  Localization of the bronx waltzer (bv) deafness gene to mouse chromosome 5.

Authors:  T J Bussoli; A Kelly; K P Steel
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.957

2.  Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration.

Authors:  K W Grant; B E Walden; P F Seitz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Consonant recognition in quiet and in noise with aging among normal hearing listeners.

Authors:  S A Gelfand; N Piper; S Silman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features.

Authors:  M D Wang; R C Bilger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients.

Authors:  E Pfeiffer
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1975-10       Impact factor: 5.562

6.  Accuracy of adaptive procedure estimates of PF-max level.

Authors:  C A Kamm; D E Morgan; D D Dirks
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1983-05

7.  Perception of short-term spectral cues for stop consonant place by normal and hearing-impaired subjects.

Authors:  D J Van Tasell; L T Hagen; L L Koblas; S G Penner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Stimulus factors influencing the identification of voiced stop consonants by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults.

Authors:  J M Lindholm; M Dorman; B E Taylor; M T Hannley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Consonant-recognition patterns and self-assessment of hearing handicap.

Authors:  C G Hustedde; T L Wiley
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1991-12

10.  Aging and consonant errors in reverberation and noise.

Authors:  K S Helfer; R A Huntley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.