Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
ASHA 2011, San Diego, Session# 8005 Poster Board 006 Individual Differences in Speech Perception: Cognitive and Perceptual Factors JAIMIE L. GILBERT, TERRIN N. TAMATI, & DAVID B. PISONI INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON BACKGROUND RESULTS SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS Sentence Recognition Accuracy, Reliability, and Comparison Phase 1 PRESTO Distribution Identify normative performance Identify Hi & Lo performers Phase 2 PRESTO & HINT Distributions Sentence Type x SNR F(3, 114) = 121.36, p < .001 Frequency The ability to understand speech in a wide variety of environments produced by different talkers is a core, fundamental characteristic of human speech perception. However, individuals vary in their ability to understand speech in adverse listening conditions, and this variation cannot be solely explained by audibility. The indexical properties of speech are processed simultaneously in parallel with the symbolic/linguistic content of the talker’s intended message (Pisoni, 1997). Other cognitive processes may also underlie individual differences in speech perception (Arlinger, Lunner, Lyxell, & Pichora-Fuller, 2009; Pisoni, 2000; Stenfelt & Rönnberg, 2009). Gender 121 21 23.4 (3.0) 21.8 (1.7) Materials Hearing Screener (25 dB HL) Sentences PRESTO Sentences (Phase 1 & Phase 2) HINT Sentences (Nilsson, Soli, & Sullivan, 1994) (Phase 2) Both presented in 6-talker babble at 4 SNRs Cognitive Tests WASI Performance IQ (Non-Verbal Intelligence) Stroop Color-Word Test (Attention/Inhibition) Digit Span Forward (Short-Term Memory) Digit Span Backward (Working Memory) WordFam (Lexicon Size) Perceptual Tests Voice Gender Discrimination Talker Voice Discrimination Regional Dialect Categorization 20 0 80 60 LoPRESTO HiPRESTO 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 PRESTO Phase 2 Overall % Correct Cognitive & Perceptual Similarities Among Hi & Lo Performers 79 Female 16 Female 14 Female 42 Male 3 Male 7 Male Mean Age (SD) In Years 22.2 (2.9) LoPRESTO HiPRESTO 40 PRESTO Phase 2 Overall % Correct Phase 2 Phase 2 HiPRESTO LoPRESTO 19 60 WASI Performance IQ, Stroop Interference Scores, Talker Discrimination Accuracy & Response Time, Gender Discrimination Response Time Cognitive & Perceptual Differences Among Hi & Lo Performers HiPRESTO had greater digit spans, forward & backward, than LoPRESTO (p ≤ .05) HiPRESTO was more accurate categorizing a regional dialect than LoPRESTO (p < .05) However, listeners who performed better on PRESTO had greater short-term memory span, greater working memory span, a larger lexicon, better accuracy categorizing U.S. regional dialects, and better accuracy when discriminating between male and female voices. Individual differences in speech perception in normalhearing subjects appear to be related to factors other than audibility, attention, and global measures of intelligence. Episodic memory and indexical processing skills merit further investigation to describe their observed role in speech perception under adverse listening conditions and in explanations of individual differences in speech perception performance. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Develop PRESTO for clinical use. Investigate interaction of target and competing speech variability. Investigate feasibility of training procedures to improve speech perception skills. KEY REFERENCES Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Lyxell, B. & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2009). The Emergence of Cognitive Hearing Science. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 371-384. 9 8 Maximum Span N Phase 1 100 80 7 6 5 4 Felty, R. (2008). Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test (OpenSet). Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University Bloomington. LoPRESTO HiPRESTO 3 2 Garofolo, J. S., Lamel, L. F., Fisher, W. M., Fiscus, J. G., Pallett, D. S., & Dahlgren, N. L. (1993). The DARPA TIMIT acoustic-phonetic continuous speech corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia. 1 0 Forward Backward Digit Span HiPRESTO had more familiarity with low and medium frequency words (p < .001), but not high frequency words (p = .053) than LoPRESTO 7 6 Familiarity Rating Normal-hearing, Native English Speakers Phase 2 PRESTO & HINT Sentence Comparison Hi group more accurate than Lo group on both sentence types (p < .01) Accuracy on PRESTO & HINT Sentences correlated (r = .52, p = .001) 100 0 METHODS Participants Phase 1 & 2 PRESTO Reliability n = 40, r = .92, p < .001 HINT (Phase 2) Overall % Correct PRESTO (Felty, 2008) TIMIT Sentences (Garafolo, et al., 1993) Structured into lists of 18 sentences (Felty, 2008) No utterance repeated Each list contains variation in: Syntactic structure & length Key word familiarity & log frequency Talker dialect Overall Mean Keyword Accuracy (%) PRESTO Phase 1 Overall % Correct Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set Goal 2: HiPRESTO vs. LoPRESTO (Extreme Groups) The two extreme groups maintained their differences in accuracy on re-test, and also differed on HINT presented in multi-talker babble. The two extreme groups did not differ on measures of nonverbal intelligence, attention/inhibition, speed of response when discriminating between talkers or genders, or talker discrimination accuracy. EXPERIMENTAL GOALS 1) Examine individual differences in speech recognition in adverse listening conditions. (Phase 1) 2) Compare individuals with high sentence recognition accuracy to individuals with low sentence recognition accuracy. (Phase 2) Goal 1: Performance on PRESTO Normal-hearing participants demonstrated a wide range of scores in sentence recognition accuracy on the highvariability PRESTO sentences. 5 4 LoPRESTO HiPRESTO 3 HiPRESTO more accurately discriminated between male and female voices than LoPRESTO, overall and on same trials (p < .05) Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some thoughts on “normalization“ in speech perception. In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 9–32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pisoni, D. B. (2000). Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: Some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear & Hearing, 21, 70-78. Stenfelt, S. & Rönnberg, J. (2009). The Signal-Cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 385-393. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by NIH-NIDCD Training Grant T32-DC00012 and NIH-NIDCD Research Grant R01-DC000111. 2 1 Low Medium High Word Frequency Overall Thanks to Luis Hernandez, Marissa Habeshy, Jillian Badell, Casey Freeman, Sushma Tatineni, & Emily Garl for assistance with this project.