PURPOSE: Children with speech sound disorder (SSD) and reading disability (RD) have poor phonological awareness, a problem believed to arise largely from deficits in processing the sensory information in speech, specifically individual acoustic cues. However, such cues are details of acoustic structure. Recent theories suggest that listeners also need to be able to integrate those details to perceive linguistically relevant form. This study examined abilities of children with SSD, RD, and SSD+RD not only to process acoustic cues but also to recover linguistically relevant form from the speech signal. METHOD: Ten- to 11-year-olds with SSD (n=17), RD (n=16), SSD+RD (n=17), and Controls (n=16) were tested to examine their sensitivity to (1) voice onset times (VOT); (2) spectral structure in fricative-vowel syllables; and (3) vocoded sentences. RESULTS: Children in all groups performed similarly with VOT stimuli, but children with disorders showed delays on other tasks, although the specifics of their performance varied. CONCLUSION: Children with poor phonemic awareness not only lack sensitivity to acoustic details, but are also less able to recover linguistically relevant forms. This is contrary to one of the main current theories of the relation between spoken and written language development. LEARNING OUTCOMES: Readers will be able to (1) understand the role speech perception plays in phonological awareness, (2) distinguish between segmental and global structure analysis of speech perception, (3) describe differences and similarities in speech perception among children with speech sound disorder and/or reading disability, and (4) recognize the importance of broadening clinical interventions to focus on recognizing structure at all levels of speech analysis.
PURPOSE:Children with speech sound disorder (SSD) and reading disability (RD) have poor phonological awareness, a problem believed to arise largely from deficits in processing the sensory information in speech, specifically individual acoustic cues. However, such cues are details of acoustic structure. Recent theories suggest that listeners also need to be able to integrate those details to perceive linguistically relevant form. This study examined abilities of children with SSD, RD, and SSD+RD not only to process acoustic cues but also to recover linguistically relevant form from the speech signal. METHOD: Ten- to 11-year-olds with SSD (n=17), RD (n=16), SSD+RD (n=17), and Controls (n=16) were tested to examine their sensitivity to (1) voice onset times (VOT); (2) spectral structure in fricative-vowel syllables; and (3) vocoded sentences. RESULTS:Children in all groups performed similarly with VOT stimuli, but children with disorders showed delays on other tasks, although the specifics of their performance varied. CONCLUSION:Children with poor phonemic awareness not only lack sensitivity to acoustic details, but are also less able to recover linguistically relevant forms. This is contrary to one of the main current theories of the relation between spoken and written language development. LEARNING OUTCOMES: Readers will be able to (1) understand the role speech perception plays in phonological awareness, (2) distinguish between segmental and global structure analysis of speech perception, (3) describe differences and similarities in speech perception among children with speech sound disorder and/or reading disability, and (4) recognize the importance of broadening clinical interventions to focus on recognizing structure at all levels of speech analysis.
Authors: Burton S Rosner; Joel B Talcott; Caroline Witton; James D Hogg; Alexandra J Richardson; Peter C Hansen; John F Stein Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Usha Goswami; Jennifer Thomson; Ulla Richardson; Rhona Stainthorp; Diana Hughes; Stuart Rosen; Sophie K Scott Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-07-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Caroline Witton; John F Stein; Catherine J Stoodley; Burton S Rosner; Joel B Talcott Journal: J Cogn Neurosci Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 3.225