Familiarisation conditions and the mechanisms that underlie improved recognition of dysarthric speech

This investigation evaluated the familiarisation conditions required to promote subsequent and more long-term improvements in perceptual processing of dysarthric speech and examined the cognitive-perceptual processes that may underlie the experience-evoked learning response. Sixty listeners were randomly allocated to one of three experimental groups and were familiarised under the following conditions: (1) neurologically intact speech (control), (2) dysarthric speech (passive familiarisation), and (3) dysarthric speech coupled with written information (explicit familiarisation). All listeners completed an identical phrase transcription task immediately following familiarisation, and listeners familiarised with dysarthric speech also completed a follow-up phrase transcription task 7 days later. Listener transcripts were analysed for a measure of intelligibility (percent words correct), as well as error patterns at a segmental (percent syllable resemblance) and suprasegmental (lexical boundary errors) level of perceptual processing. The study found that intelligibility scores for listeners familiarised with dysarthric speech were significantly greater than those of the control group, with the greatest and most robust gains afforded by the explicit familiarisation condition. Relative perceptual gains in detecting phonetic and prosodic aspects of the signal varied dependent upon the familiarisation conditions, suggesting that passive familiarisation may recruit a different learning mechanism to that of a more explicit familiarisation experience involving supplementary written information. It appears that decisions regarding resource allocation during subsequent processing of dysarthric speech may be informed by the information afforded by the conditions of familiarisation.

[1]  Gary Weismer,et al.  Acoustic Descriptions of Dysarthric Speech: Perceptual Correlates and Physiological Inferences , 1984 .

[2]  D. Scott Perceptual learning. , 1974, Queen's nursing journal.

[3]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary , 1987 .

[4]  S. Spitzer,et al.  Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception , 2007, Hearing Research.

[6]  J. Mehler,et al.  Adaptation to time-compressed speech: Phonological determinants , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  J. McQueen,et al.  The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  Shawn A. Weil,et al.  Foreign accented speech: Encoding and generalization , 2001 .

[10]  D. Norris,et al.  Perceptual learning in speech , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Stephanie A. Borrie,et al.  Perceptual learning of dysarthric speech: a review of experimental studies. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Effects of training on the acoustic phonetic representation of synthetic speech. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

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

[14]  S. Spitzer,et al.  Lexical boundary error analysis in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  J. Mehler,et al.  Perceptual adjustment to time-compressed speech: A cross-linguistic study , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[16]  J. Liss,et al.  An exploration of familiarization effects in the perception of hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthric speech , 2000 .

[17]  Lori L. Holt,et al.  Are there interactive processes in speech perception? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  A. Cutler,et al.  Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception , 1992 .

[19]  Laurence White,et al.  Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: a hierarchical framework. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Effects of semantic context and feedback on perceptual learning of speech processed through an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Julie M. Liss,et al.  The role of listener familiarity in the perception of dysarthric speech , 1995 .

[22]  J Reichle,et al.  The intelligibility of synthesized speech: ECHO II versus VOTRAX. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  Donald Ervin Knuth,et al.  The Art of Computer Programming , 1968 .

[24]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Perceptual learning of synthetic speech , 1998 .

[25]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Duration of Syllable Nuclei in English , 1960 .

[26]  S. Greenspan,et al.  Perceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  K. Tjaden,et al.  Intelligibility in dysarthria: Effects of listener familiarity and speaking condition , 2006, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[28]  G. Fairbanks Voice and articulation drillbook , 1960 .

[29]  N. McGarr,et al.  The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. , 1983, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[30]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Speech Perception and Spoken Word Recognition: Past and Present , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[31]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access , 1988 .

[32]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  Julie M Liss,et al.  The effects of familiarization on intelligibility and lexical segmentation in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Effects of stimulus variability and adult aging on adaptation to time-compressed speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  K. Hustad,et al.  Effects of presentation mode and repeated familiarization on intelligibility of dysarthric speech. , 2003, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[37]  Tessa Bent,et al.  Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech , 2008, Cognition.