The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: individual variability in the use of sentence context.

Estimates of the ability to make use of sentence context in 34 postlingually hearing-impaired (HI) individuals were obtained using formulas developed by Boothroyd and Nittrouer [Boothroyd and Nittrouer, J. Acoust. Sco. Am. 84, 101-114 (1988)] which relate scores for isolated words to words in meaningful sentences. Sentence materials were constructed by concatenating digitized productions of isolated words to ensure physical equivalence among the test items in the two conditions. Isolated words and words in sentences were tested at three levels of intelligibility (targeting 29%, 50%, and 79% correct). Thus, for each subject, three estimates of context ability, or k factors, were obtained. In addition, auditory, visual, and auditory-visual sentence recognition was evaluated using natural productions of sentence materials. Two main questions were addressed: (1) Is context ability constant for speech materials produced with different degrees of clarity? and (2) What are the relations between individual estimates of k and sentence recognition as a function of presentation modality? Results showed that estimates of k were not constant across different levels of intelligibility: k was greater for the more degraded condition relative to conditions of higher word intelligibility. Estimates of k also were influenced strongly by the test order of isolated words and words in sentences. That is, prior exposure to words in sentences improved later recognition of the same words when presented in isolation (and vice versa), even though the 1500 key words comprising the test materials were presented under degraded (filtered) conditions without feedback. The impact of this order effect was to reduce individual estimates of k for subjects exposed to sentence materials first and to increase estimates of k for subjects exposed to isolated words first. Finally, significant relationships were found between individual k scores and sentence recognition scores in all three presentation modalities, suggesting that k is a useful measure of individual differences in the ability to use sentence context.

[1]  K. Grant,et al.  Measures of auditory-visual integration in nonsense syllables and sentences. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  W. H. Sumby,et al.  Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise , 1954 .

[4]  M. Bullimore,et al.  Changes in the lower displacement limit for motion with age , 1995, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[5]  N P Erber,et al.  Effects of sentence context on recognition of words through lipreading by deaf children. , 1976, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  Guessing and speechreading. , 1987, British journal of audiology.

[7]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Speed of processing in normal aging: effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. , 1985, Journal of gerontology.

[8]  L. L. Elliott,et al.  Verbal auditory closure and the speech perception in noise (SPIN) Test. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  B E Walden,et al.  Evaluating the articulation index for auditory-visual consonant recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  D J Schum,et al.  SPIN test performance of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[11]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  C. Watson,et al.  Auditory and visual speech perception: confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  L E Humes,et al.  Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[14]  A Wingfield,et al.  Does Memory Constrain Utilization of Top-Down Information in Spoken word Recognition? Evidence from Normal Aging , 1994, Language and speech.

[15]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  K M Hutchinson Influence of sentence context on speech perception in young and older adults. , 1989, Journal of gerontology.

[17]  D. Massaro Speech Perception By Ear and Eye: A Paradigm for Psychological Inquiry , 1989 .

[18]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Word identification in isolation and in context by college dyslexic students , 1991, Brain and Language.

[19]  Arthur Boothroyd,et al.  A sentence test of speech perception: reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning , 1985 .

[20]  W O Olsen,et al.  Phoneme and Word Recognition for Words in Isolation and in Sentences , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[21]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Minimum bandwidth required for speech‐reception by normal‐hearing and hearing‐impaired listeners , 1998 .

[22]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Conceptual constraints in sentence-based lipreading in the hearing impaired. , 1998 .

[23]  G. Cohen,et al.  Word recognition: age differences in contextual facilitation effects. , 1983, British journal of psychology.

[24]  W M Rabinowitz,et al.  Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  Encoding, stimulus-response compatibility, and stages of processing , 1977 .

[26]  K. Stanovich,et al.  The effect of orthographic structure on the word search performance of good and poor readers. , 1979, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[27]  M. Demorest,et al.  Issues and Developments in the Evaluation of Speechreading. , 1988 .

[28]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  I M Noordhoek,et al.  Measuring the threshold for speech reception by adaptive variation of the signal bandwidth. I. Normal-hearing listeners. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  M E Demorest,et al.  Sources of variability in speechreading sentences: a generalizability analysis. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[31]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[32]  K. Grant,et al.  Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.