Intelligibility of modified speech for young listeners with normal and impaired hearing.

Exposure to modified speech has been shown to benefit children with language-learning impairments with respect to their language skills (M. M. Merzenich et al., 1998; P. Tallal et al., 1996). In the study by Tallal and colleagues, the speech modification consisted of both slowing down and amplifying fast, transitional elements of speech. In this study, we examined whether the benefits of modified speech could be extended to provide intelligibility improvements for children with severe-to-profound hearing impairment who wear sensory aids. In addition, the separate effects on intelligibility of slowing down and amplifying speech were evaluated. Two groups of listeners were employed: 8 severe-to-profoundly hearing-impaired children and 5 children with normal hearing. Four speech-processing conditions were tested: (1) natural, unprocessed speech; (2) envelope-amplified speech; (3) slowed speech; and (4) both slowed and envelope-amplified speech. For each condition, three types of speech materials were used: words in sentences, isolated words, and syllable contrasts. To degrade the performance of the normal-hearing children, all testing was completed with a noise background. Results from the hearing-impaired children showed that all varieties of modified speech yielded either equivalent or poorer intelligibility than unprocessed speech. For words in sentences and isolated words, the slowing-down of speech had no effect on intelligibility scores whereas envelope amplification, both alone and combined with slowing-down, yielded significantly lower scores. Intelligibility results from normal-hearing children listening in noise were somewhat similar to those from hearing-impaired children. For isolated words, the slowing-down of speech had no effect on intelligibility whereas envelope amplification degraded intelligibility. For both subject groups, speech processing had no statistically significant effect on syllable discrimination. In summary, without extensive exposure to the speech processing conditions, children with impaired hearing and children with normal hearing listening in noise received no intelligibility advantage from either slowed speech or envelope-amplified speech.

[1]  T. Carrell,et al.  Effects of lengthened formant transition duration on discrimination and neural representation of synthetic CV syllables by normal and learning-disabled children. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  A E Geers,et al.  Speech perception and production skills of students with impaired hearing from oral and total communication education settings. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  R Plomp,et al.  The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Practical Implications of Cochlear Implants in Children , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[5]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  L D Braida,et al.  Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  L. Braida,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing IV: Further studies of the role of speaking rate. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  M. Picheny,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  M. Portnoff,et al.  Time-scale modification of speech based on short-time Fourier analysis , 1981 .

[10]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[11]  P. C. Pandey,et al.  The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 1939 .

[12]  Jean C. Krause,et al.  Investigating alternative forms of clear speech: the effects of speaking rate and speaking mode on intelligibility. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Victor W. Zue,et al.  The effect of speech rate on the application of low‐level phonological rules in American English , 1985 .

[14]  B. Lindblom,et al.  Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels , 1994 .

[15]  S. Gordon-Salant Recognition of natural and time/intensity altered CVs by young and elderly subjects with normal hearing. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  W M Jenkins,et al.  Speech modifications algorithms used for training language learning-impaired children. , 1998, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[17]  A E Carney,et al.  A comparison of speech discrimination with cochlear implants and tactile aids. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  B J Gantz,et al.  Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[19]  J. F. Schmitt,et al.  The effects of time compression and time expansion on passage comprehension by elderly listeners. , 1983, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  N I Durlach,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. III: An attempt to determine the contribution of speaking rate to differences in intelligibility between clear and conversational speech. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  G. Church,et al.  Intelligibility of time-expanded speech with normally hearing and elderly subjects. , 1978, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[23]  T S Kapteyn,et al.  Effect of time-scale modification of speech on the speech recognition threshold in noise for hearing-impaired and language-impaired children. , 1994, Scandinavian audiology.

[24]  P. Tallal,et al.  Developmental aphasia: The perception of brief vowels and extended stop consonants , 1975, Neuropsychologia.

[25]  Steven L. Miller,et al.  Temporal Processing Deficits of Language-Learning Impaired Children Ameliorated by Training , 1996, Science.

[26]  John Bamford,et al.  Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children , 1979 .

[27]  N I Durlach,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  B. P. Frost,et al.  Decelerated Synthesized Speech as a Means of Shaping Speed of Auditory Processing of Children with Delayed Language , 1982, Perceptual and motor skills.

[29]  What should be implemented in future cochlear implants? , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[30]  J. E. Stone,et al.  Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT–R) , 1989, Diagnostique.

[31]  A E Carney,et al.  Effects of transition length on the perception of stop consonants by children and adults. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[32]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Andrew C. Simpson,et al.  The effect of cue-enhancement on the intelligibility of nonsense word and sentence materials presented in noise , 1998, Speech Commun..

[34]  Steven L. Miller,et al.  Language Comprehension in Language-Learning Impaired Children Improved with Acoustically Modified Speech , 1996, Science.

[35]  Eric Fosler-Lussier,et al.  Effects of speaking rate and word frequency on pronunciations in convertional speech , 1999, Speech Commun..

[36]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[37]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Lexical Effects on Spoken Word Recognition by Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[38]  J F Stein,et al.  Effect of time and frequency manipulation on syllable perception in developmental dyslexics. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[39]  M. Ross,et al.  Word Intelligibility by Picture Identification. , 1971 .