Literature DB >> 28586824

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise.

Boji P W Lam1, Zilong Xie1, Rachel Tessmer1, Bharath Chandrasekaran2.   

Abstract

Purpose: Although lexical information influences phoneme perception, the extent to which reliance on lexical information enhances speech processing in challenging listening environments is unclear. We examined the extent to which individual differences in lexical influences on phonemic processing impact speech processing in maskers containing varying degrees of linguistic information (2-talker babble or pink noise). Method: Twenty-nine monolingual English speakers were instructed to ignore the lexical status of spoken syllables (e.g., gift vs. kift) and to only categorize the initial phonemes (/g/ vs. /k/). The same participants then performed speech recognition tasks in the presence of 2-talker babble or pink noise in audio-only and audiovisual conditions.
Results: Individuals who demonstrated greater lexical influences on phonemic processing experienced greater speech processing difficulties in 2-talker babble than in pink noise. These selective difficulties were present across audio-only and audiovisual conditions.
Conclusion: Individuals with greater reliance on lexical processes during speech perception exhibit impaired speech recognition in listening conditions in which competing talkers introduce audible linguistic interferences. Future studies should examine the locus of lexical influences/interferences on phonemic processing and speech-in-speech processing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28586824      PMCID: PMC5544416          DOI: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-16-0133

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


  53 in total

1.  Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: what is the role for working memory capacity?

Authors:  Patrik Sörqvist; Jerker Rönnberg
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  The role of visual speech cues in reducing energetic and informational masking.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Richard L Freyman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.840

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.  Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition.

Authors:  W D Marslen-Wilson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1987-03

6.  Lexical influences on speech perception: a Granger causality analysis of MEG and EEG source estimates.

Authors:  David W Gow; Jennifer A Segawa; Seppo P Ahlfors; Fa-Hsuan Lin
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-07-25       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Lexical representations in children with SLI: evidence from a frequency-manipulated gating task.

Authors:  Elina Mainela-Arnold; Julia L Evans; Jeffry A Coady
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Speech perception and lexical effects in specific language impairment.

Authors:  Richard G Schwartz; Frances L V Scheffler; Karece Lopez
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.346

9.  Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content.

Authors:  Susanne Brouwer; Kristin J Van Engen; Lauren Calandruccio; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.482

10.  Selective spatial attention modulates bottom-up informational masking of speech.

Authors:  Simon Carlile; Caitlin Corkhill
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  4 in total

1.  Auditory cortex is susceptible to lexical influence as revealed by informational vs. energetic masking of speech categorization.

Authors:  Jared A Carter; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 3.252

2.  Individual Differences in Lexical Contributions to Speech Perception.

Authors:  Nikole Giovannone; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Lexical Influences on Categorical Speech Perception Are Driven by a Temporoparietal Circuit.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Claire Pearson; Ashleigh Harrison
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 3.420

4.  Impact of depression on speech perception in noise.

Authors:  Zilong Xie; Benjamin D Zinszer; Meredith Riggs; Christopher G Beevers; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.