Direct magnitude estimates of speech intelligibility in dysarthria: effects of a chosen standard.

Direct magnitude estimation (DME) has been used frequently as a perceptual scaling technique in studies of the speech intelligibility of persons with speech disorders. The technique is typically used with a standard, or reference stimulus, chosen as a good exemplar of "midrange" intelligibility. In several published studies, the standard has been chosen subjectively, usually on the basis of the expertise of the investigators. The current experiment demonstrates that a fixed set of sentence-level utterances, obtained from 4 individuals with dysarthria (2 with Parkinson disease, 2 with traumatic brain injury) as well as 3 neurologically normal speakers, is scaled differently depending on the identity of the standard. Four different standards were used in the main experiment, three of which were judged qualitatively in two independent evaluations to be good exemplars of midrange intelligibility. Acoustic analyses did not reveal obvious differences between these four standards but suggested that the standard with the worst-scaled intelligibility had much poorer voice source characteristics compared to the other three standards. Results are discussed in terms of possible standardization of midrange intelligibility exemplars for DME experiments.

[1]  G. Weismer,et al.  The influence of speaking rate on vowel space and speech intelligibility for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  The acoustic signature for intelligibility test words. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  M. Y. Chen,et al.  Acoustic parameters of nasalized vowels in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing speakers. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  W. Ketterl [On zinc oxyphosphate cement]. , 1966, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria. , 1989, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[6]  Psychophysical analysis of audiovisual judgments of speech naturalness of nonstutterers and stutterers. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[7]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Intelligibility in speech disorders : theory, measurement, and management , 1992 .

[8]  Psychological Scaling of Speech by Students in Training Compared to That by Experienced Speech-Language Pathologists , 1985, Perceptual and motor skills.

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

[10]  N. Schiavetti,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of stuttering severity. , 1983, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  R. Forthofer,et al.  Rank Correlation Methods , 1981 .

[12]  George A. Gescheider,et al.  Psychophysics: Method and theory , 1976 .

[13]  Nicholas Schiavetti,et al.  1. Scaling procedures for the measurement of speech intelligibility , 1992 .

[14]  W. A. Shaw,et al.  Magnitude of the Standard, Numerical Value of the Standard, and Stimulus Spacing in the Estimation of Loudness , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[15]  M. McHenry Aerodynamic, acoustic, and perceptual measures of nasality following traumatic brain injury. , 1999, Brain injury.

[16]  Gary Weismer,et al.  3. Acoustic and perceptual approaches to the study of intelligibility , 1992 .

[17]  J. M. Bevan,et al.  Rank Correlation Methods , 1949 .

[18]  R. B. Monsen,et al.  The oral speech intelligibility of hearing-impaired talkers. , 1983, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[19]  S. Link,et al.  Bias in Quantifying Judgments , 1989 .

[20]  Mats Blomberg,et al.  Acoustic analysis of dysarthric speech , 2000 .

[21]  M. Southwood Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of naturalness and bizarreness of the dysarthria associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 1996 .

[22]  S. S. Stevens The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes-loudness. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[23]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  Robin A. Samlan,et al.  The Relationship of Selected Perceptual Measures of Diadochokinesis to Speech Intelligibility in Dysarthric Speakers With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis , 1995 .

[25]  F. Emanuel,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and equal appearing interval scaling of vowel roughness. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[26]  F. Emanuel,et al.  Relationship of spectral noise levels to psychophysical scaling of vowel roughness. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[27]  Deborah Theodoros,et al.  Acoustic analysis of dysarthric speech , 1998 .

[28]  L. O. Ramig,et al.  4. The role of phonation in speech intelligibility: A review and preliminary data from patients with Parkinson's disease , 1992 .

[29]  J. Beck,et al.  The scaling of pitch by the method of magnitude-estimation. , 1961, The American journal of psychology.

[30]  D. E. Williams,et al.  Comparison of procedures for scaling severity of stuttering. , 1963, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[31]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Acoustic and intelligibility characteristics of sentence production in neurogenic speech disorders. , 1997, Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics.

[32]  N. Schiavetti,et al.  Construct validity of direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of speech intelligibility: evidence from a study of the hearing impaired. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[33]  J. Liss,et al.  A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[34]  E. Poulton The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. , 1968 .

[35]  A. Aronson,et al.  Clusters of deviant speech dimensions in the dysarthrias. , 1969, Journal of speech and hearing research.