Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 932519, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/932519
Research Article

Spoken Word Recognition Errors in Speech Audiometry: A Measure of Hearing Performance?

1Department of Language, Literature and Communication, Language and Hearing Center Amsterdam, VU Free University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
2The Eargroup, Herentalsebaan 75, 2100 Antwerpen, Belgium

Received 19 January 2015; Revised 1 June 2015; Accepted 8 June 2015

Academic Editor: Markus Hess

Copyright © 2015 Martine Coene et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. C. A. Fowler and J. S. Magnuson, “Speech perception,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics, M. J. Spivey, K. McRae, and M. F. Joanisse, Eds., pp. 3–26, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  2. P. B. Denes and E. N. Pinson, The Speech Chain: The Physics and Biology of Spoken Language, W.H. Freeman, Oxford, UK, 2nd edition, 1993.
  3. A. C. M. Rietveld and V. J. van Heuven, Algemene Fonetiek, Coutinho, Bussum, The Netherlands, 3rd edition, 2009.
  4. H. H. Dunn, R. J. Roeser, and M. Valente, Audiological Practice Management, Thieme Medical Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  5. G. A. Miller and P. A. Nicely, “An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 27, pp. 338–352, 1955. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. E. Sagi and M. A. Svirsky, “Information transfer analysis: a first look at estimation bias,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 2848–2857, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. T. Baer, B. C. J. Moore, and K. Kluk, “Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 112, no. 3 I, pp. 1133–1144, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. D. A. Vickers, B. C. J. Moore, and T. Baer, “Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 1164–1175, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. Arlinger, T. Lunner, B. Lyxell, and M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller, “The emergence of cognitive hearing science,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 371–384, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. E. L. J. George, A. A. Zekveld, S. E. Kramer, S. T. Goverts, J. M. Festen, and T. Houtgast, “Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 121, no. 4, pp. 2362–2375, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. S. E. Kramer, A. A. Zekveld, and T. Houtgast, “Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: the value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 507–515, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. A. A. Zekveld, D. J. Heslenfeld, J. M. Festen, and R. Schoonhoven, “Top-down and bottom-up processes in speech comprehension,” NeuroImage, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1826–1836, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. K. Pichora-Fuller, “Auditory and cognitive processing in audiologic rehabilitation,” in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation: Advanced Practices, J. Spitzer and J. Montano, Eds., pp. 519–536, Plural Publishing, San Diego, Calif, USA, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  14. M. Rudner, C. Foo, J. Rönnberg, and T. Lunner, “Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 405–418, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. Rönnberg, M. Rudner, T. Lunner, and A. A. Zekveld, “When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise,” Noise and Health, vol. 12, no. 49, pp. 263–269, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. R. M. Warren, “Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds,” Science, vol. 167, no. 3917, pp. 392–393, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. F. Grosjean, “Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm,” Perception & Psychophysics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 267–283, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. V. Steinbiss, H. Ney, X. Aubert et al., “The Philips Research system for continuous-speech recognition,” Philips Journal of Research, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 317–352, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. J. Lowe, The relative contribution of top-down and bottom-up information during lexical access [Ph.D. thesis], University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1990.
  20. J. Morton, “Word recognition,” in Psycholinguistics 2: Structures and Processes, J. Morton and J. D. Marshall, Eds., pp. 107–156, MIT Press, Cambridge, UK, 1979. View at Google Scholar
  21. W. D. Marslen-Wilson and A. Welsh, “Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 29–63, 1978. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. D. J. Foss and M. A. Blank, “Identifying the speech codes,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–31, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. L. McClelland, D. Mirman, and L. L. Holt, “Are there interactive processes in speech perception?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 363–369, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. J. L. McClelland and J. L. Elman, “The TRACE model of speech perception,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–86, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. D. Norris and J. M. McQueen, “Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition,” Psychological Review, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 357–395, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. D. Norris, J. M. McQueen, and A. Cutler, “Merging information in speech recognition: feedback is never necessary,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 299–370, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. L. Metsala, “An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word recognition,” Memory & Cognition, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 47–56, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. E. T. Auer Jr., “The influence of the lexicon on speech read word recognition: contrasting segmental and lexical distinctiveness,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 341–347, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. C. Richard, L. Tordella, A. Bernard, C. H. Martin, S. Roy, and A. Moulin, “Ageing and linguistic factors influence on speech audiometry,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 147, p. 198, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  30. P. Assman and Q. Summerfield, “The perception of speech under adverse conditions,” in Speech Processing in the Auditory System, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, S. Greenberg, W. A. Ainsworth, A. N. Popper, and R. R. Fay, Eds., pp. 231–308, Springer, New-York, NY, USA, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  31. K. I. Forster, “Accessing the mental lexicon,” in New Approaches to Language Mechanisms, R. J. Wales and E. Walker, Eds., pp. 257–287, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1976. View at Google Scholar
  32. P. A. Luce and D. B. Pisoni, “Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model,” Ear and Hearing, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. P. Era, J. Jokela, Y. Qvarnberg, and E. Heikkinen, “Pure-tone thresholds, speech understanding, and their correlates in samples of men of different ages,” Audiology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 338–352, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. T. Letowski, P. Hergenreder, and H. Tang, “Relationships between speech recognition threshold, average hearing level, and speech importance noise detection threshold,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1131–1136, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. S. Coren, L. M. Ward, and J. T. Enns, Sensation and Perception, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
  36. A. J. Bosman, J. Wouters, and W. Damman, “Realisatie van een cd voor spraakaudiometrie in Vlaanderen,” Logopedie en Audiologie, vol. 9, pp. 218–225, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  37. G. Booij, The Phonology of Dutch, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1995.
  38. A. Hammer, B. Vaerenberg, W. Kowalcyk, L. F. M. ten Bosch, M. Coene, and P. Govaerts, “Balancing word lists in speech audiometry through large spoken language corpora,” in Proceedings of the Interspeech, pp. 3613–3616, Lyon, France, 2013.
  39. D. Omar Robinson and M. J. Koenigs, “A comparison of procedures and materials for speech reception thresholds,” Journal of the American Auditory Society, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 227–230, 1979. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. R. M. Cox and D. M. McDaniel, “Development of the speech intelligibility rating (Sir) test for hearing aid comparisons,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 347–352, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. Van Dale Groot Woordenboek van de Nederlandse Taal, Van Dale Uitgevers, Antwerp, Belgium, 14th edition, 2005.
  42. N. Oostdijk, “Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands: veelzijdig onderzoeksinstrument voor o.a. taalkundig en taal- en spraaktechnologisch onderzoek,” Link, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3–6, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  43. A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2007.
  44. M. Key, “Interactive and autonomous modes of speech perception: phonological knowledge and discrimination in English and French listeners,” Laboratory Phonology, vol. 11, pp. 73–74, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  45. J. Kingston, S. Kawahara, D. Chambless, M. Key, D. Mash, and S. Watsky, “Context effects as auditory contrast,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 1437–1464, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. R. L. Diehl, “On the robustness of speech perception,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS '11), Hong Kong, August 2011.