Generalizability of speechreading performance on nonsense syllables, words, and sentences: subjects with normal hearing.

Ninety-six adults with normal hearing viewed three types of recorded speechreading materials (consonant-vowel nonsense syllables, isolated words, and sentences) on 2 days. Responses to nonsense syllables were scored for syllables correct and syllable groups correct; responses to words and sentences were scored in terms of words correct, phonemes correct, and an estimate of visual distance between the stimulus and the response. Generalizability analysis was used to quantify sources of variability in performance. Subjects and test items were important sources of variability for all three types of materials; effects of talker and day of testing varied but were comparatively small. For each type of material, alternative models of test construction and test-score interpretation were evaluated through estimation of generalizability coefficients as a function of test length. Performance on nonsense syllables correlated about .50 with both word and sentence measures, whereas correlations between words and sentences typically exceeded .80.

[1]  S A Duffy,et al.  Comprehension of Synthetic Speech Produced by Rule: A Review and Theoretical Interpretation , 1992, Language and speech.

[2]  J UTLEY.  A test of lip reading ability. , 1946, The Journal of speech disorders.

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

[4]  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.

[5]  K. Stanovich.  TOWARD AN INTERACTIVE-COMPENSATORY MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF READING FLUENCY , 1980 .

[6]  K. D. Kryter,et al.  ARTICULATION-TESTING METHODS: CONSONANTAL DIFFERENTIATION WITH A CLOSED-RESPONSE SET. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  W Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: words, phonemes, and features. , 1994, Psychological review.

[8]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. , 1974 .

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

[10]  B E Walden,et al.  Some effects of training on speech recognition by hearing-impaired adults. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  T CAWTHORNE,et al.  Hearing and deafness. , 1961, London Clinic medical journal.

[12]  D W Massaro,et al.  Discovery and expository methods in teaching visual consonant and word identification. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  Karl D. Kryter,et al.  A Proposed Clinical Test of Speech Discrimination , 1968 .

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

[15]  S Rosen,et al.  A video-recorded test of lipreading for British English. , 1982, British journal of audiology.

[16]  Eva Nick,et al.  The dependability of behavioral measurements: theory of generalizability for scores and profiles , 1973 .

[17]  M E Demorest,et al.  Speechreading sentences with single-channel vibrotactile presentation of voice fundamental frequency. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  E. Owens,et al.  Visemes observed by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing adult viewers. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  A. Montgomery,et al.  Physical characteristics of the lips underlying vowel lipreading performance. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  M E Demorest,et al.  A computational approach to analyzing sentential speech perception: phoneme-to-phoneme stimulus-response alignment. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.