1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
oa
Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: Links to linguistic and cognitive abilities
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
    + View Affiliations - Hide Affiliations
    Affiliations:
    1 Pento Audiology Center Zwolle, Oosterlaan 20, 8011 GC Zwolle, The Netherlandsm.r.benard@umcg.nl, j.mensink@pento.nl
    2 University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Postbus 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlandsd.baskent@umcg.nl
    a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Also at: Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
    b) Also at: University of Groningen, Graduate School of Medical Sciences (Research School of Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences), The Netherlands.
    J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, EL88 (2014); http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4862879
/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/2/10.1121/1.4862879
1.
1. Akeroyd, M. A. (2008). “Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults,” Int. J. Audiol. 47 Suppl. 2, S53S71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020802301142
2.
2. Bashford, J. A. , Riener, K. R. , and Warren, R. M. (1992). “Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations,” Percept. Psychophys. 51, 211217.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212247
3.
3. Başkent, D. (2010). “Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, EL169EL174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3475794
4.
4. Başkent, D. (2012). “Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: Phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric-acoustic stimulation,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 13, 683692.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0334-3
5.
5. Bell, N. L. , Lassiter, K. S. , Matthews, T. D. , and Hutchinson, M. B. (2001). “Comparison of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition with university students,” J. Clin. Psychol. 57, 417422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1024
6.
6. Benard, M. R. , and Başkent, D. (2013). “Perceptual learning of interrupted speech,” PLoS One 8, e58149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058149
7.
7. Benson, N. , Hulac, D. M. , and Kranzler, J. H. (2010). “Independent examination of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): What does the WAIS-IV measure?,” Psychol. Assess. 22, 121130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017767
8.
8. Chatterjee, M. , Peredo, F. , Nelson, D. , and Başkent, D. (2010). “Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, EL37EL41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121%2F1.3284544
9.
9. Saija, J. D. , Akyürek, E. G. , Andringa, T. C. , and Başkent, D. (2013). “Perceptual restoration of degraded speech is preserved with advancing age,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. (e-pub November 7, 2013).
10.
10. Schlichting, L. (2005). “Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 3rd ed. (PPVT-III-NL) Dutch version.”
11.
11. Sivonen, P. , Maess, B. , Lattner, S. , and Friederici, A. D. (2006). “Phonemic restoration in a sentence context: Evidence from early and late ERP effects,” Brain Res. 1121, 177189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.123
12.
12. Verschuure, J. , and Brocaar, M. P. (1983). “Intelligibility of interrupted meaningful and nonsense speech with and without intervening noise,” Percept. Psych. 33, 232240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03202859
13.
13. Versfeld, N. J. , Daalder, L. , Festen, J. M. , and Houtgast, T. (2000). “Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 16711684.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.428451
14.
14. Wang, X. , and Humes, L. E. (2010). “Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 21002111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3483733
15.
15. Warren, R. (1983). “Auditory illusions and their relation to mechanisms normally enhancing accuracy of perception,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 31, 623629.
16.
16. Wechsler, D. (2012). “Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th ed. (WAIS-IV-NL) Dutch version.”
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/2/10.1121/1.4862879
Loading
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.

Click to view

FIG. 1.

The percent correct scores for intelligibility of interrupted speech shown as a function of the quotient scores of the PPVT-III-NL (upper panels) and the full-scale intelligence quotient scores of the WAIS-IV-NL (lower panels). The columns show results with normal and slow-rate sentences. The open and filled symbols represent the scores without (S conditions) and with filler noise (N conditions), respectively. The black and gray symbols represent the scores with the slow (1.25 Hz) and fast (2.50 Hz) interruptions. The black and gray trend lines represent the best linear regression, by means of the linear least squares method, through the black and gray data points (continuous for N conditions, and dashed for S conditions), respectively. The correlation analyses are indicated in each panel for individual regression lines.

Image of FIG. 2.

Click to view

FIG. 2.

Phonemic restoration benefit shown as a function of the intelligibility scores in the silent conditions (S) for the normal speech (left panel) and slow speech (right panel). The black and gray triangles show the results for the slow (1.25 Hz) and fast (2.50 Hz) interruptions, respectively, and the regression lines are shown with corresponding colors.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/2/10.1121/1.4862879
2014-01-24
2014-04-17

Abstract

Top-down restoration mechanisms can enhance perception of degraded speech. Even in normal hearing, however, a large variability has been observed in how effectively individuals can benefit from these mechanisms. To investigate if this variability is partially caused by individuals’ linguistic and cognitive skills, normal-hearing participants of varying ages were assessed for receptive vocabulary (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; PPVT-III-NL), for full-scale intelligence (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WAIS-IV-NL), and for top-down restoration of interrupted speech (with silent or noise-filled gaps). Receptive vocabulary was significantly correlated with the other measures, suggesting linguistic skills to be highly involved in restoration of degraded speech.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/135/2/1.4862879.html;jsessionid=1nd261ago0wsn.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/2/10.1121/1.4862879&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: Links to linguistic and cognitive abilities
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/2/10.1121/1.4862879
10.1121/1.4862879
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM