Literature DB >> 9099558

Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normal-hearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I: The effects of response format.

M S Sommers1, K I Kirk, D B Pisoni.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present studies was to assess the validity of using closed-set response formats to measure two cognitive processes essential for recognizing spoken words---perceptual normalization (the ability to accommodate acoustic-phonetic variability) and lexical discrimination (the ability to isolate words in the mental lexicon). In addition, the experiments were designed to examine the effects of response format on evaluation of these two abilities in normal-hearing (NH), noise-masked normal-hearing (NMNH), and cochlear implant (CI) subject populations.
DESIGN: The speech recognition performance of NH, NMNH, and CI listeners was measured using both open- and closed-set response formats under a number of experimental conditions. To assess talker normalization abilities, identification scores for words produced by a single talker were compared with recognition performance for items produced by multiple talkers. To examine lexical discrimination, performance for words that are phonetically similar to many other words (hard words) was compared with scores for items with few phonetically similar competitors (easy words).
RESULTS: Open-set word identification for all subjects was significantly poorer when stimuli were produced in lists with multiple talkers compared with conditions in which all of the words were spoken by a single talker. Open-set word recognition also was better for lexically easy compared with lexically hard words. Closed-set tests, in contrast, failed to reveal the effects of either talker variability or lexical difficulty even when the response alternatives provided were systematically selected to maximize confusability with target items.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, although closed-set tests may provide important information for clinical assessment of speech perception, they may not adequately evaluate a number of cognitive processes that are necessary for recognizing spoken words. The parallel results obtained across all subject groups indicate that NH, NMNH, and CI listeners engage similar perceptual operations to identify spoken words. Implications of these findings for the design of new test batteries that can provide comprehensive evaluations of the individual capacities needed for processing spoken language are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9099558      PMCID: PMC3499953          DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199704000-00001

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


  21 in total

1.  Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant.

Authors:  W M Rabinowitz; D K Eddington; L A Delhorne; P A Cuneo
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception.

Authors:  T M Nearey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word lists.

Authors:  C S Martin; J W Mullennix; D B Pisoni; W V Summers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning.

Authors:  David B Pisoni
Journal:  Speech Commun       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 2.017

5.  Linguistic background and test material considerations in assessing sentence identification ability in English- and Spanish-English-speaking adolescents.

Authors:  D C Garstecki; M K Wilkin
Journal:  J Am Audiol Soc       Date:  1976 May-Jun

6.  Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception.

Authors:  J W Mullennix; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1990-04

7.  Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition.

Authors:  J W Mullennix; D B Pisoni; C S Martin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition.

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

9.  Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. I. Effects of variability in speaking rate and overall amplitude.

Authors:  M S Sommers; L C Nygaard; D B Pisoni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Initial Iowa results with the multichannel cochlear implant from Melbourne.

Authors:  R S Tyler; M W Lowder; S R Otto; J P Preece; B J Gantz; B F McCabe
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1984-12
View more
  29 in total

1.  Modeling spoken word recognition performance by pediatric cochlear implant users using feature identification.

Authors:  S A Frisch; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing.

Authors:  M K Tanenhaus; J S Magnuson; D Dahan; C Chambers
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2000-11

3.  Effects of Speaking Rate on Word Recognition in Parkinson's Disease and Normal Aging.

Authors:  Karen Forrest; Lynne Nygaard; David B Pisoni; Eric Siemers
Journal:  J Med Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  1998-03

4.  Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Adam R Kaiser; Karen Iler Kirk; Lorin Lachs; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Effects of lexical competition on immediate memory span for spoken words.

Authors:  Winston D Goh; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2003-08

6.  Development and preliminary evaluation of a pediatric Spanish-English speech perception task.

Authors:  Lauren Calandruccio; Bianca Gomez; Emily Buss; Lori J Leibold
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.493

7.  Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning of dialects.

Authors:  Cynthia G Clopper; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.500

8.  Effects of open-set and closed-set task demands on spoken word recognition.

Authors:  Cynthia G Clopper; David B Pisoni; Adam T Tierney
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Visual speech fills in both discrimination and identification of non-intact auditory speech in children.

Authors:  Susan Jerger; Markus F Damian; Rachel P McAlpine; Hervé Abdi
Journal:  J Child Lang       Date:  2017-07-20

10.  The process of spoken word recognition in the face of signal degradation.

Authors:  Ashley Farris-Trimble; Bob McMurray; Nicole Cigrand; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.