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

Auditory–Visual (AV) speech recognition is influenced by at least three primary factors: (1) the ability to extract auditory (A) and visual (V) cues; (2) the ability to integrate these cues into a single linguistic object; and (3) the ability to use semantic and syntactic constraints available within the context of a sentence. In this study, the ability of hearing‐impaired individuals to recognize bandpass filtered words presented in isolation and in meaningful sentences was evaluated. Sentence materials were constructed by concatenating digitized productions of isolated words to ensure physical equivalence among the test items in the two conditions. Formulae for calculating k factors [Boothroyd and Nittrouer, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 101–114 (1988)], which relate scores for words and sentences, were applied to individual subject data obtained at three levels of isolated word‐recognition performance approximating 30%, 50%, and 70% correct. In addition, A, V, and AV sentence recognition in noise was evaluated using natural productions of fluent speech. Two main issues are addressed: (1) the effects of intelligibility on estimates of k within individual subjects; and (2) the relations between individual estimates of k and sentence recognition in noise as a function of presentation modality. [Work supported by NIH Grant DC00792.]

[1]  D. Cl Speechreading training: believe it or not! , 1990 .

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

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

[4]  Robert C. Bilger,et al.  Standardization of a Test of Speech Perception in Noise , 1984 .

[5]  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.

[6]  D J Madden,et al.  Adult age differences in the effects of sentence context and stimulus degradation during visual word recognition. , 1988, Psychology and aging.

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

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

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

[10]  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.

[11]  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.

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

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

[15]  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.

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

[17]  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.

[18]  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.

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

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

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

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

[23]  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.

[24]  J. Rönnberg,et al.  Information-processing skill and speech-reading. , 1989, British journal of audiology.

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

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

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

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

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