How does linguistic complexity influence intelligibility in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test?

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 50, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 621-631

  Uslar, Verena ^a   Ruigendijk, Esther ^a   Hamann, Cornelia ^a   Brand, Thomas ^a   Kollmeier, Birger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

G ttingen sentence test; Linguistic complexity; Speech reception threshold; Speech recognition in noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEARING; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEARING; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80051853931     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2011.582166     Document Type: Article

References (43)

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), 125-143.
2. Bader M. & Bayer J. 2006. Case and Linking in Language Comprehension: Evidence from German. Heidelberg: Springer.
3. Bates E., Wulfeck B. & McWhinney B. 1991. Cross-linguistic research in aphasia: An overview. Brain Lang, 41, 123-148.
4. Borer H. & Wexler K. 1987. The maturation of syntax. In: T. Roeper & E. Williams (eds.), Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 123-172.
5. Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2002. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2801-2810.
6. Caplan D. & Waters G. 1999. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Brain Behav Sci, 22, 77-126.
7. Caramazza A. & Zurif E. 1976. Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain Lang, 3, 572-582.
8. Cherry E.C. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 25, 975-979.
9. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
10. DIN 45621 1973. Teil 1: Wörter für Gehörprüfung mit Sprache. Deutsche Elektrotechnische Kommision. Fachnormenausschu Elektrotechnik im DIN und VDE (DKE).
11. Friederici A.D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cog Sci, 6, 78-84.
12. Friederici A.D., Fiebach C.J., Schlesewsky M., Bornkessel I. & von Cramon Y.D. 2006. Processing linguistic complexity and grammaticality in the left frontal cortex. Cereb Cortex, 16, 1709-1717.
13. Friedmann N. & Gvion A. 2003. Sentence comprehension and working memory limitation: A dissociation between semantic and phonological encoding. Brain Lang, 86, 23-39.
14. Friedmann N. & Novogrodsky R. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. J Child Lang, 31, 661-681.
15. Fox D. & Grodzinsky Y. 1998. Children's passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguist Inq, 29, 311-332.
16. George E.L.J., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2006. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearingimpaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295-2311.
17. George E.L.J., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M. et al. 2007. Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2362-2375.
18. Gibson E. 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.
19. Gibson E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
20. Grodzinsky Y. 2000. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behav Brain Sci, 23, 1-71.
21. Hasher L. & Zacks R.T. 1988. Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In: G.H. Bower (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York, NY: Academic Press, Vol 22, pp. 193-225.
22. Hirsh I.J., Davis H., Silverman S.R., Reynolds E.G., Eldert E. et al. 1952. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord, 17, 321-337.
23. Just M.A. & Carpenter P.A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychol Rev, 99, 122-149.
24. Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N. & Elliott L.L. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am, 61, 1337-1351.
25. Kollmeier B. & Wesselkamp M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2412-2421.
26. Mak W.M., Vonk W. & Schriefers H. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. J Mem Lang, 54, 466-490.
27. Mattys S.L., Brooks J. & Cooke M. 2009. Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cog Psy, 59 (3), 203-243.
28. Musolino J., Crain S. & Thornton R. 2000. Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguist, 38, 1-32.
29. Nilsson M.J., Soli S.D. & Sullivan J. 1994. Development of a hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085-1099.
30. Oldfield R.C. & Wingfield A. 1965. Response latencies in naming objects. Q J Exp Psychol, 17, 273-281.
31. Pichora-Fuller M.K. 2008. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. Int J Audiol, 47 (Suppl. 2), 144-154.
32. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
33. Shapiro L.P. & Levine B. 1990. Verb processing during sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain Lang, 38, 21-47.
34. Shapiro L.P., Zurif E. & Grimshaw J. 1987. Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition, 27, 219-246.
35. Shapiro L.P., Zurif E. & Grimshaw J. 1989. Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability. J Psycholinguist Res, 18, 223-243.
36. Van der Lely H. & Harris M. 1990. Comprehension of reversible sentences in specifically language impaired children. J Speech Hear Disord, 55, 101-117.
37. Wagener K., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol/Audiol Acoust, 38, 4-15.
38. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol/Audiol Acoust, 38, 44-56.
39. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol/Audiol Acousti, 38, 86-95.
40. Wingfield A., McCoy S.L., Peelle J.E., Tun P.A. & Cox L.C. 2006. Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 487-497.
41. Wong L.L.N., Ho A.H.S., Chua E.W.W. & Soli S.D. 2007. Development of the Cantonese speech intelligibility index. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 4, 2350-2361.
42. Zweig E. & Pylkkänen L. 2009. A visual M170 effect of morphological complexity. Lang Cogn Process, 24, 3, 412-439.
43. Zurif E., Swinney D., Prather P., Wingfield A. & Brownell H. 1995. The allocation of memory resources during sentence comprehension: Evidence from the elderly. J Psycholinguist Res, 24, 165-182.