Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 7249848, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7249848
Research Article

Linguistic Factors Influencing Speech Audiometric Assessment

1Language and Hearing Center Amsterdam, Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2The Eargroup, Antwerp, Belgium
3Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Received 23 March 2016; Revised 9 June 2016; Accepted 11 August 2016

Academic Editor: Claus-Peter Richter

Copyright © 2016 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. E. C. Cherry, “Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 975–979, 1953. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. E. C. Cherry and W. K. Taylor, “Some further experiments upon the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 554–559, 1954. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. C. Smits and J. M. Festen, “The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: steady-state noise,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 2987–2998, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. D. R. Moore, M. Edmondson-Jones, P. Dawes et al., “Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and cognition from 40–69 years of age,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 9, Article ID e107720, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. S. Bradley and H. Sato, “The intelligibility of speech in elementary school classrooms,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 2078–2086, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Fallon, S. E. Trehub, and B. A. Schneider, “Children's perception of speech in multitalker babble,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 3023–3029, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. Stuart, G. D. Givens, L. J. Walker, and S. Elangovan, “Auditory temporal resolution in normal-hearing preschool children revealed by word recognition in continuous and interrupted noise,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 1946–1949, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. Kortlang, M. Mauermann, and S. D. Ewert, “Suprathreshold auditory processing deficits in noise: effects of hearing loss and age,” Hearing Research, vol. 331, pp. 27–40, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. T. Schoof and S. Rosen, “The role of auditory and cognitive factors in understanding speech in noise by normal-hearing older listeners,” Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 6, article 307, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. S. L. Smith and M. K. Pichora-Fuller, “Associations between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of verbal working memory: effects of linguistic complexity, task, age, and hearing loss,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, article 1394, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. M. A. Akeroyd, “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,” International Journal of Audiology, vol. 47, supplement 2, pp. S53–S71, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. P. A. Tun, V. A. Williams, B. J. Small, and E. R. Hafter, “The effects of aging on auditory processing and cognition,” American Journal of Audiology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 344–350, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. J. Besser, The connected ear. Influences of cognitive and auditory-temporal processing on speech understanding in adverse conditions [Ph.D. thesis], Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2015.
  14. R. M. Warren, C. J. Obusek, and J. M. Ackroff, “Auditory induction: perceptual synthesis of absent sounds,” Science, vol. 176, no. 4039, pp. 1149–1151, 1972. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. M. Liberman, F. S. Cooper, D. P. Shankweiler, and M. Studdert-Kennedy, “Perception of the speech code,” Psychological Review, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 431–461, 1967. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. W. F. Ganong, “Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 110–125, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M. Coene, A. van der Lee, and P. J. Govaerts, “Spoken word recognition errors in speech audiometry: a measure of hearing performance?” BioMed Research International, vol. 2015, Article ID 932519, 8 pages, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. W. O. Olsen, D. J. Van Tasell, and C. E. Speaks, “Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences,” Ear and Hearing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 175–188, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. J. Benichov, L. C. Cox, P. A. Tun, and A. Wingfield, “Word recognition within a linguistic context: effects of age, hearing acuity, verbal ability, and cognitive function,” Ear and Hearing, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 250–256, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Wingfield, S. L. McCoy, J. E. Peelle, P. A. Tun, and L. C. Cox, “Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity,” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 487–497, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. R. Carroll and E. Ruigendijk, “The effects of syntactic complexity on processing sentences in noise,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 139–159, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. V. Uslar, E. Ruigendijk, C. Hamann, T. Brand, and B. Kollmeier, “How does linguistic complexity influence intelligibility in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test?” International Journal of Audiology, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 621–631, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. F. Volpato and M. Vernice, “The production of relative clauses by Italian cochlear-implanted and hearing children,” Lingua, vol. 139, pp. 39–67, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. E. L. J. George, J. M. Festen, and T. Houtgast, “Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 2295–2311, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. E. B. Goldstein, Sensation and Perception, Wadsworth-Thomson, Pacific Grove, Calif, USA, 2002.
  26. L. Ortega, “Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: a research synthesis of college-level L2 writing,” Applied Linguistics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 492–518, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. B. Mondorf, “Support for more-support,” in Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf, Eds., pp. 251–304, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  28. M. Chen and K. Zechner, “Computing and evaluating syntactic complexity features for automated scoring of spontaneous non-native speech,” in Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 722–731, Portland, Ore, USA, June 2011. View at Scopus
  29. F. Ferreira, “Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 210–233, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. B. M. Szmrecsanyi, “On operationalizing syntactic complexity,” JADT 2004: 7es Journées Internationales d'Analyse Statistique des Données Textuelles, pp. 1031–1038, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  31. M. Roll, J. Frid, and M. Horne, “Measuring syntactic complexity in spontaneous spoken Swedish,” Language and Speech, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 227–245, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. N. Chomsky, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Chicago University Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1975.
  33. A. Carnie, Modern Syntax: A Coursebook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011.
  34. N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1995.
  35. C. J. W. Zwart, “‘Shortest steps’ vs. ‘fewest steps’,” in Minimal Ideas. Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thrainsson, and C. J. W. Zwart, Eds., pp. 239–261, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  36. J. Hawkins, A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1994.
  37. M. P. Marcus, Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Languages, MIT Press, Boston, Mass, USA, 1980.
  38. E. Gibson, “Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies,” Cognition, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1–76, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. G. Fanselow, R. Kliegl, and M. Schlesewksy, “Processing difficulty and principles of grammar,” in Constraints on Language: Aging, Grammar and Memory, S. Kemper and R. Kliegl, Eds., pp. 170–200, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  40. M. K. Pichora-Fuller, “Cognitive aging and auditory information processing,” International Journal of Audiology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 26–32, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. P. A. Tun, S. McCoy, and A. Wingfield, “Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 761–766, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. A. Wingfield, P. A. Tun, and S. L. McCoy, “Hearing loss in older adulthood: what it is and how it interacts with cognitive performance,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 144–148, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. D. Wendt, B. Kollmeier, and T. Brand, “How hearing impairment affects sentence comprehension: using eye fixations to investigate the duration of speech processing,” Trends in Hearing, vol. 19, pp. 1–18, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. Cutler, “Phonological cues to open- and closed class words,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 109–130, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  45. A. Cutler and D. M. Carter, “The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary,” Computer Speech and Language, vol. 2, no. 3-4, pp. 133–142, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. A. Waibel, Prosody and Speech Recognition, Pitman, London, UK, 1988.
  47. A. Cutler and D. G. Norris, “The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 113–121, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. A. Salasoo and D. B. Pisoni, “Perception of open and closed class words in fluent speech,” in Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report 7, pp. 187–195, University of Indiana, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  49. A. Cutler and S. Butterfield, “Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: evidence from juncture misperception,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 218–236, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. M. F. Garrett, “Words and sentence perception,” in Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol VIII: Perception, R. Held, H. J. Leibowitz, and H. L. Teuber, Eds., pp. 611–625, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1978. View at Google Scholar
  51. N. Oostdijk, “Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands: veelzijdig onderzoeksinstrument voor o.a. taalkundig en taalen spraaktechnologisch onderzoek,” Link, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3–6, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  52. K. Daemers, M. Yperman, C. De Beukelaer, G. De Saegher, G. De Ceulaer, and P. J. Govaerts, “Normative data of the A§E® discrimination and identification tests in preverbal children,” Cochlear Implants International, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 107–116, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  53. E. Selkirk, Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1984.
  54. E. Selkirk, “Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing,” in Handbook of Phonological Theory, J. Goldsmith, Ed., pp. 550–569, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  55. A. Cutler and D. J. Foss, “On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing,” Language and Speech, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 1977. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. M. A. Anusuya and S. A. Katty, “Speech recognition by machine. A review,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 181–205, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  57. M. J. Traxler, R. K. Morris, and R. E. Seely, “Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 69–90, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. L. B. Leonard, K. K. McGregor, and G. D. Allen, “Grammatical morphology and speech perception in children with specific language impairment,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1076–1085, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. L. B. Leonard, “Language learnability and specific language impairment in children,” Applied Psycholinguistics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 179–202, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  60. J. Rönnberg, T. Lunner, A. Zekveld et al., “The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances,” Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, vol. 7, article 31, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. V. N. Uslar, R. Carroll, M. Hanke et al., “Development and evaluation of a linguistically and audiologically controlled sentence intelligibility test,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 134, no. 4, pp. 3039–3056, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. G. H. Saunders, T. H. Chisolm, and H. B. Abrams, “Measuring hearing aid outcomes-not as easy as it seems,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 157–168, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. A. Heinrich, H. Henshaw, and M. A. Ferguson, “The relationship of speech intelligibility with hearing sensitivity, cognition, and perceived hearing difficulties varies for different speech perception tests,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, article 782, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar