The effects of familiarization on intelligibility and lexical segmentation in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria.

This study is the third in a series that has explored the source of intelligibility decrement in dysarthria by jointly considering signal characteristics and the cognitive-perceptual processes employed by listeners. A paradigm of lexical boundary error analysis was used to examine this interface by manipulating listener constraints with a brief familiarization procedure. If familiarization allows listeners to extract relevant segmental and suprasegmental information from dysarthric speech, they should obtain higher intelligibility scores than nonfamiliarized listeners, and their lexical boundary error patterns should approximate those obtained in misperceptions of normal speech. Listeners transcribed phrases produced by speakers with either hypokinetic or ataxic dysarthria after being familiarized with other phrases produced by these speakers. Data were compared to those of nonfamiliarized listeners [Liss et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 3415-3424 (2000)]. The familiarized groups obtained higher intelligibility scores than nonfamiliarized groups, and the effects were greater when the dysarthria type of the familiarization procedure matched the dysarthria type of the transcription task. Remarkably, no differences in lexical boundary error patterns were discovered between the familiarized and nonfamiliarized groups. Transcribers of the ataxic speech appeared to have difficulty distinguishing strong and weak syllables in spite of the familiarization. Results suggest that intelligibility decrements arise from the perceptual challenges posed by the degraded segmental and suprasegmental aspects of the signal, but that this type of familiarization process may differentially facilitate mapping segmental information onto existing phonological categories.

[1]  L. Nakatani,et al.  Hearing "words" without words: prosodic cues for word perception. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  C. Watts,et al.  Intelligibility and acceptability of moderately dysarthric speech by three types of listeners , 1999 .

[3]  E C Schwab,et al.  Some Effects of Training on the Perception of Synthetic Speech , 1985, Human factors.

[4]  M. Cohen,et al.  Effects of categorization and discrimination training on auditory perceptual space. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  S. Spitzer,et al.  Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  S. Greenspan,et al.  Perceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  A Cutler,et al.  The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Julie M. Liss,et al.  The role of listener familiarity in the perception of dysarthric speech , 1995 .

[9]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  A Longitudinal Case Study of ALS: Effects of Listener Familiarity and Proficiency on Intelligibility Judgments , 2000 .

[11]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[13]  K. Robinson,et al.  Adult auditory learning and training. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[14]  S. Spitzer,et al.  Lexical boundary error analysis in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  J. Mehler,et al.  New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition , 2001 .

[16]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary , 1987 .

[17]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: a first report. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Tracey M. Derwing,et al.  Processing Time, Accent, and Comprehensibility in the Perception of Native and Foreign-Accented Speech , 1995, Language and speech.

[19]  Speaker-listener familiarity: parents as judges of delayed speech intelligibility. , 1995, Journal of communication disorders.

[20]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access , 1988 .

[21]  J. Liss,et al.  An exploration of familiarization effects in the perception of hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthric speech , 2000 .

[22]  A. Cutler,et al.  Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception , 1992 .

[23]  J. Mehler,et al.  Adaptation to time-compressed speech: Phonological determinants , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  Ann Cutler,et al.  Prosody in the Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review , 1997, Language and speech.

[25]  T. Carrell,et al.  Central auditory system plasticity: generalization to novel stimuli following listening training. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Spoken word access processes: An introduction , 2001 .

[27]  A. Aronson,et al.  Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. , 1969, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  J W Horst Frequency discrimination of complex signals, frequency selectivity, and speech perception in hearing-impaired subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Test‐Retest Reliability of Loudness Scaling , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[30]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Perceptual adjustment to highly compressed speech: effects of talker and rate changes. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  I. Lehiste The Timing of Utterances and Linguistic Boundaries , 1972 .

[32]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech , 1989 .