Speech perception in a communicative context: An investigation using question/answer pairs

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 540-552

  Flynn, Mark C ^a,b   Dowell, Richard C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Adjacency pairs; Context; Hearing impairment; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MALE; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL COMMUNICATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0033062199     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4203.540     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American National Standards Institute. (1991). Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms (ANSI S3.1-1991). New York: Author.
2. Bench, J., & Doyle, J. (1979). The BKB/A (Bamford-Kowal-Bench/Australian Version) sentence lists for hearing-impaired children. Carlton, Australia: Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences.
3. Boothroyd, A. (1968). Developments in speech audiometry. Sound, 2, 3-10.
4. Boothroyd, A., Hanin, L., & Hnath, T. (1985). A sentence test of speech perception: Reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning (Internal report RCI 10). New York: City University of New York.
5. Boothroyd, A., & Nittrouer, S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phonemes and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 101-114.
6. Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear and Hearing, 7, 257-265.
7. Clark, H. H., & Bly, B. (1995). Pragmatics and discourse. In L. J. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language and communication (2nd ed., pp. 371-410). San Diego: Academic Press.
8. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gilmore, C., & Pusakulich, K .M. (1988). Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear and Hearing, 9, 198-207.
9. Damico, J. S. (1991). Clinical discourse analysis: A functional approach to language assessment. In C. S. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment and therapy methodologies for language learning disabled students (pp. 125-150). Eau Claire: WI. Thinking Publications.
10. Dillman, D. A. (1983). Mail and other self-administered questionnaires. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 359-376). New York: Academic Press.
11. Ellis, A., & Beattie, G. (1986). The psychology of language and communication. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Erber, N. P. (1988). Communication therapy for hearing impaired adults. Melbourne, Australia: Clavis.
13. Erber, N. P. (1992). Effects of a question-answer format on visual perception of sentences. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 25, 113-122.
14. Erber, N. P., & Lind, C. (1994). Communication therapy: Theory and practice. In J. P. Gagne & N. Tye-Murray (Eds.), Research in audiological rehabilitation: Current trends and future directions [Monograph]. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 27, 47-66.
15. Flynn, M. C. (1998). Speech perception in adults with a severe hearing impairment. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
16. Flynn, M. C., Dowell, R. C., & Clark, G. M. (1998). Aided speech recognition abilities of adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 285-299.
17. Gagne, J. P. (1994). Visual and audiovisual speech perception training: Basic and applied research needs. In J. P. Gagne & N. Tye-Murray (Eds.), Research in audiological rehabilitation: Current trends and future directions [Monograph]. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 27, 133-159.
18. Gagne, J. P., Tugby, K. G., & Michaud, J. (1991). Development of a speechreading test on the utilization of contextual cues (STUCC): Preliminary findings with normal hearing subject. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 24, 157-170.
19. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Volume 3, Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
20. Hutchinson, K. M. (1989). Influence of sentence context on speech perception in young and older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 44(2), 36-44.
21. Jose, P. E. (1988). Sequentiality of speech acts in conversational structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 65-88.
22. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliot, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
23. Kretch, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1962). Individual in society. New York: McGraw Hill.
24. Kruger, B., & Kruger, F. M. (1994). Future trends in hearing aid fitting strategies: With a view towards 2020. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings (pp. 300-342). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
25. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 5-19.
26. Olsen, W. O., Van Tassell, D. J., & Speaks, C. E. (1997). Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences. Ear and Hearing, 18, 175-188.
27. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 593-608.
28. Pollack, I., & Pickett, J. M. (1964). Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Auditory versus structural content. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 3, 79-84.
29. Revoile, S., Kozma-Spytek, L., Holden-Pitt, L. D., Pickett J., & Dorge, J. (1995). Acoustic-phonetic context considerations for speech recognition testing of hearing-impaired listeners. Ear and Hearing, 16, 254-262.
30. Ryan, B. F., & Joiner, B. L. (1994). Minitab handbook (3rd ed.). Belmont: CA: Duxbury Press.
31. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
32. Seewald, R. C., Ross, M., & Spiro, M. K. (1985). Selecting amplification characteristics for young hearing impaired children. Ear and Hearing, 6, 48-53.
33. Seewald, R. C., Ross, M., & Stelmachowicz, P. G. (1987). Selecting and verifying hearing aid performance for young children. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 20, 23-37.
34. Sheatsley, P. B. (1983). Questionnaire construction and item writing. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 195-230). New York: Academic Press.
35. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., & Binzer, S. M. (1994). Aural rehabilitation for individuals with severe and profound hearing impairment: Hearing aids, cochlear implants, counselling and training. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings (pp. 249-266). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
36. Smith, B. R., & Leinonen, E. (1992). Clinical pragmatics: Unravelling the complexities of communication failure. New York: Chapman & Hall.
37. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cornwall, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
38. Taylor, T. J., & Cameron, D. (1987). Analysing conversation: Rules and units in the structure of talk. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press.
39. Theodoridis, G. C., & Schoeny, Z. G. (1990). Procedure learning effects in speech perception tests. Audiology, 29, 228-239.
40. Tye-Murray, N., Witt, S., & Castelloe, J. (1996). Initial evaluation of an interactive test of sentence gist recognition. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 396-405.
41. Wilson, J. (1989). On the boundaries of conversation. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press.
42. Yacullo, W. S., & Hawkins, D. B. (1987). Speech recognition in noise and reverberation by school age children. Audiology, 26, 235-246.
43. th ed., pp. 97-108). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.