| Literature DB >> 23801976 |
David J Wang1, Sandra E Trehub, Anna Volkova, Pascal van Lieshout.
Abstract
Cochlear implants have enabled many congenitally or prelingually deaf children to acquire their native language and communicate successfully on the basis of electrical rather than acoustic input. Nevertheless, degraded spectral input provided by the device reduces the ability to perceive emotion in speech. We compared the vocal imitations of 5- to 7-year-old deaf children who were highly successful bilateral implant users with those of a control sample of children who had normal hearing. First, the children imitated several happy and sad sentences produced by a child model. When adults in Experiment 1 rated the similarity of imitated to model utterances, ratings were significantly higher for the hearing children. Both hearing and deaf children produced poorer imitations of happy than sad utterances because of difficulty matching the greater pitch modulation of the happy versions. When adults in Experiment 2 rated electronically filtered versions of the utterances, which obscured the verbal content, ratings of happy and sad utterances were significantly differentiated for deaf as well as hearing children. The ratings of deaf children, however, were significantly less differentiated. Although deaf children's utterances exhibited culturally typical pitch modulation, their pitch modulation was reduced relative to that of hearing children. One practical implication is that therapeutic interventions for deaf children could expand their focus on suprasegmental aspects of speech perception and production, especially intonation patterns.Entities:
Keywords: children; cochlear implants; emotion; production; prosody
Year: 2013 PMID: 23801976 PMCID: PMC3689189 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Description of the CI sample.
| CI-1 | M | 6.5 | 3.4; 3.4 | Freedom | Progressive |
| CI-2 | M | 5.5 | 0.8; 1.7 | CP810 | Genetic |
| CI-3 | M | 5.6 | 1.1; 1.1 | Freedom | Genetic |
| CI-4 | F | 6.9 | 1.0; 3.6 | SPrint/Freedom | Genetic |
| CI-5 | F | 7.2 | 2.5; 4.0 | Freedom | Progressive |
| CI-7 | M | 5.3 | 0.9; 1.8 | Freedom | Genetic |
| CI-8 | M | 6.1 | 0.8; 1.5 | Freedom | Genetic |
| CI-12 | F | 6.3 | 1.0; 3.5 | SPrint/Freedom | Unknown |
| CI-17 | F | 5.1 | 1.1; 3.3 | Freedom | Genetic |
Sentences imitated by children.
| 1. Look. My bike is broken |
| 2. I lost my new red crayon |
| 3. The doggie ate my birthday cake |
| 4. My friend can't come to play |
| 5. I had so much fun at the park |
| 6. My dad gave me a present |
| 7. Look at that cute puppy |
| 8. Wow. What a pretty rainbow |
Figure 1Mean ratings of child CI users' and NH children's imitations of the model's happy and sad utterances (content intact). Error bars indicate standard errors.
Figure 3Mean ratings of the low-pass filtered imitations (i.e., content unintelligible) of child CI users and NH children as happy- or sad-sounding. Error bars indicate standard errors.
Figure 4Box plots of difference scores (happy/sad ratings of happy utterances minus ratings of sad utterances) for child CI users and NH children. Top and bottom lines of each box indicate the 75th and 25th percentile, respectively. Lines within each box indicate the median. Top and bottom of the whiskers indicate the highest and lowest scores.
Figure 2Acoustic features of the happy and sad utterances of child CI users, NH children, and the model. (A) Mean F0 (Hz); (B) mean variability (SD) of F0 (Hz); (C) mean F0 range (semitones); (D) mean variability (SD) of intensity (dB). Error bars indicate standard errors.