Literature DB >> 30334835

Developmental Effects in Children's Ability to Benefit From F0 Differences Between Target and Masker Speech.

Mary M Flaherty1, Emily Buss2, Lori J Leibold3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the extent to which school-age children benefit from fundamental frequency (F0) differences between target words and competing two-talker speech, and (2) assess whether this benefit changes with age. It was predicted that while children would be more susceptible to speech-in-speech masking compared to adults, they would benefit from differences in F0 between target and masker speech. A second experiment was conducted to evaluate the relationship between frequency discrimination thresholds and the ability to benefit from target/masker differences in F0.
DESIGN: Listeners were children (5 to 15 years) and adults (20 to 36 years) with normal hearing. In the first experiment, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for disyllabic words were measured in a continuous, 60-dB SPL two-talker speech masker. The same male talker produced both the target and masker speech (average F0 = 120 Hz). The level of the target words was adaptively varied to estimate the level associated with 71% correct identification. The procedure was a four-alternative forced-choice with a picture-pointing response. Target words either had the same mean F0 as the masker or it was shifted up by 3, 6, or 9 semitones. To determine the benefit of target/masker F0 separation on word recognition, masking release was computed by subtracting thresholds in each shifted-F0 condition from the threshold in the unshifted-F0 condition. In the second experiment, frequency discrimination thresholds were collected for a subset of listeners to determine whether sensitivity to F0 differences would be predictive of SRTs. The standard was the syllable /ba/ with an F0 of 250 Hz; the target stimuli had a higher F0. Discrimination thresholds were measured using a three-alternative, three-interval forced choice procedure.
RESULTS: Younger children (5 to 12 years) had significantly poorer SRTs than older children (13 to 15 years) and adults in the unshifted-F0 condition. The benefit of F0 separations generally increased with increasing child age and magnitude of target/masker F0 separation. For 5- to 7-year-olds, there was a small benefit of F0 separation in the 9-semitone condition only. For 8- to 12-year-olds, there was a benefit from both 6- and 9-semitone separations, but to a lesser degree than what was observed for older children (13 to 15 years) and adults, who showed a substantial benefit in the 6- and 9-semitone conditions. Examination of individual data found that children younger than 7 years of age did not benefit from any of the F0 separations tested. Results for the frequency discrimination task indicated that, while there was a trend for improved thresholds with increasing age, these thresholds were not predictive of the ability to use F0 differences in the speech-in-speech recognition task after controlling for age.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall pattern of results suggests that children's ability to benefit from F0 differences in speech-in-speech recognition follows a prolonged developmental trajectory. Younger children are less able to capitalize on differences in F0 between target and masker speech. The extent to which individual children benefitted from target/masker F0 differences was not associated with their frequency discrimination thresholds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30334835      PMCID: PMC6467703          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000673

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  56 in total

1.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers.

Authors:  Christopher J Darwin; Douglas S Brungart; Brian D Simpson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Influence of musical and psychoacoustical training on pitch discrimination.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Karine Delhommeau; Xavier Perrot; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Development of spatial release from masking in mandarin-speaking children with normal hearing.

Authors:  Kevin C P Yuen; Meng Yuan
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  T'ain't the way you say it, it's what you say--perceptual continuity of voice and top-down restoration of speech.

Authors:  Jeanne Clarke; Etienne Gaudrain; Monita Chatterjee; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Development of frequency discrimination at 250 Hz is similar for tone and /ba/ stimuli.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Mary M Flaherty; Lori J Leibold
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in young children.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Spatial Release From Masking in Children: Effects of Simulated Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Nicole E Corbin; Emily Buss; Lori J Leibold
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.

Authors:  J Hillenbrand; L A Getty; M J Clark; K Wheeler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  FO processing and the separation of competing speech signals by listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss.

Authors:  V Summers; M R Leek
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Spectral integration and bandwidth effects on speech recognition in school-aged children and adults.

Authors:  Stefan Mlot; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  9 in total

1.  Masking Release for Speech-in-Speech Recognition Due to a Target/Masker Sex Mismatch in Children With Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Lori J Leibold; Jenna M Browning; Emily Buss
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  The effect of target/masker fundamental frequency contour similarity on masked-speech recognition.

Authors:  Lauren Calandruccio; Peter A Wasiuk; Emily Buss; Lori J Leibold; Jessica Kong; Ann Holmes; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Amplitude modulation detection and modulation masking in school-age children and adults.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Christian Lorenzi; Laurianne Cabrera; Lori J Leibold; John H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Infants' use of isolated and combined temporal cues in speech sound segregation.

Authors:  Monika-Maria Oster; Lynne A Werner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of Hearing Loss on School-Aged Children's Ability to Benefit From F0 Differences Between Target and Masker Speech.

Authors:  Mary M Flaherty; Jenna Browning; Emily Buss; Lori J Leibold
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 July/Aug       Impact factor: 3.562

6.  Contribution of Stimulus Variability to Word Recognition in Noise Versus Two-Talker Speech for School-Age Children and Adults.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Lauren Calandruccio; Jacob Oleson; Lori J Leibold
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.562

7.  The Clear-Speech Benefit for School-Age Children: Speech-in-Noise and Speech-in-Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Lauren Calandruccio; Heather L Porter; Lori J Leibold; Emily Buss
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Effect of Masker Head Orientation, Listener Age, and Extended High-Frequency Sensitivity on Speech Recognition in Spatially Separated Speech.

Authors:  Meredith D Braza; Nicole E Corbin; Emily Buss; Brian B Monson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.562

9.  Development of voice perception is dissociated across gender cues in school-age children.

Authors:  Leanne Nagels; Etienne Gaudrain; Deborah Vickers; Petra Hendriks; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.