New sentence recognition materials developed using a basic non-native English Lexicon

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 55, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1342-1355

  Calandruccio, Lauren ^a   Smiljanic, Rajka ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Non native English speaker; Sentence testing; Speech in noise

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84866069685     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0260)     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adler, S. (1990). Multicultural clients: Implications for the SLP. Language, Speech, andHearingServices inSchools, 21135-139.
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Available from www.asha.org/policy/.
3. Ballachanda, B. B. (2001a, April). Audiological assessment of "We, the foreign born. " Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, 7(1), 11-13.
4. Ballachanda, B. B. (2001b). Meeting the needs of multicultural clients. Advance for Audiologists, 3(5), 50-53.
5. Bamford, J., & Wilson, I. (1979). Methodological considerations and practical aspects of the BKB sentence lists. In J. Bench & J. Bamford (Eds.), Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children (pp. 148-187). London, England: Academic Press.
6. Bench, J., Kowal, A., & Bamford, J. (1979). The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. British Journal of Audiology, 13108-112.
7. Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1141600-1611.
8. Bilger, R. C., Nuetzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M., & Rzeczkowski, C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 2732-48.
9. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.2.39) [Computer program]. Available from www.praat.org /.
10. Bradlow, A. R., & Alexander, J. A. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1212339-2349.
11. Bradlow, A. R., & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4, Pt. 1), 2074-2085.
12. Chan, C. L. (2012). NU-subdb: Northwestern University Subject Database [Web application]. Chicago, IL: Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University. Retrieved from https://babel.ling.northwestern.edu /nusubdb2.
13. Crandell, C. C., & Smaldino, J. J. (1996). Speech perception in noise by children for whom English is a second language. American Journal of Audiology, 547-51.
14. Cutler, A., Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., & Cooke, M. (2008). Consonant identification in noise by native and non-native listeners: Effects of local context. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1241264-1268.
15. Gelfand, S. A. (2009). Essentials of audiology. New York, NY: Thieme.
16. Healy, E. W., & Montgomery, A. A. (2007). The consistency of sentence intelligibility across three types of signal distortion. Journal of Speech Language, and Hearing Research, 50270-282.
17. Hedrick, M. (1997). Effect of acoustic cues on labeling fricatives and affricates. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40925-938.
18. IEEE Subcommittee on Subjective Measurements IEEE Recommended Practices for Speech Quality Measurements. (1969). IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 227-246.
19. Mayo, L. H., Florentine, M., & Buus, S. (1997). Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40686-693.
20. Nakamura, K., & Gordon-Salant, S. (2011). Speech perception in quiet and noise using the Hearing in Noise Test and the Japanese Hearing in Noise Test by Japanese listeners. Ear and Hearing, 32121-131.
21. New York State Comptroller. (2000). Queens: An economic review. Available from www.osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt1100/ rpt1100.htm.
22. Pinet, M., & Iverson, P. (2010). Talker-listener accent interactions in speech-in-noise recognition: Effects of prosodic manipulation as a function of language experience. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1281357-1365.
23. Shi, L.F. (2010). Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53821-835.
24. Smiljanic, R., & Bradlow, A. (2011). Bidirectional clear speech perception benefit for native and high proficiency nonnative talker-listener pairs: Intelligibility and accentedness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1304020-4031.
25. Soli, S. D., & Wong, L. L. N. (2008). Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the Hearing in Noise Test. International Journal of Audiology, 47356-361.
26. Tabri, D., Chacra, K. M., & Pring, T. (2011). Speech perception in noise bymonolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46411-422.
27. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
28. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census 2000 redistricting data (Public Law 94-171) summary file, Tables PL1 and PL2; and 2010 census redistricting data (Public Law 94-171) summary file, Tables P1 and P2. Statistical abstract of the United States, Section 1. Available from http://2010.census.gov/ 2010census/data/.
29. Van Engen, K. J. (2010). Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first-and second-language multi-talker babble. Speech Communication, 52943-953.
30. Van Wijngaarden, S. J., Steeneken, H. J., & Houtgast, T. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1111906-1916.
31. Villchur, E. (1982). The evaluation of amplitude-compression processing for hearing aids. In G. A. Studebaker & F. H. Bess (Eds.), The Vanderbilt hearing-aid report (pp. 141-143). Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology.
32. Wingfield, A., Poon, L.W., Lombardi, L., & Lowe, D. (1985). Speed of processing in normal aging: Effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. Journal of Gerontology, 40579-585.
33. Yund, E. W., & Woods, D. L. (2010). Content and procedural learning in repeated sentence tests of speech perception. Ear and Hearing, 31769-778.
34. Zeng, F. G., & Turner, C. W. (1990). Recognition of voiceless fricatives by normal and hearing-impaired subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33440-449.