Speech Discrimination Testing with Hearing Young Children

1960 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-248
Author(s):  
Bernard A. Landes
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. e191-e197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhao Ellen Peng ◽  
Christi Hess ◽  
Jenny R. Saffran ◽  
Jan R. Edwards ◽  
Ruth Y. Litovsky

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 656-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Owens ◽  
Earl D. Schubert

Subjects were English-speaking adults with hearing impairment. Etiology of hearing loss did not enter into selection. Consonant errors were observed on speech discrimination test lists employing a closed-set response system. Fifteen subjects were employed for the first list and 20 each for the remaining four lists, with an occasional subject serving in more than one group. Confusions between unvoiced and voiced consonants rarely occurred; the /r/ and /l/ were seldom confused with other phonemes; and nasals were seldom confused with non-nasals. Discrimination difficulty was related to both place and manner of articulation.


1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 648-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Owens ◽  
Carolyn B. Talbott ◽  
Earl D. Schubert

Vowel discrimination ability was observed in two groups of 20 hearing-impaired subjects each. Each group listened to a different list of closed-set test items specifically designed for the study. A surprisingly low number of errors occurred, suggesting that vowel items in general lack the efficiency required for speech discrimination testing using a closed-set response system. Among the most difficult phonemes to discriminate clearly were /ɔ I /, /ɔ/, /au/, /ε/, /o/, and /α/. The phonemes most frequently substituted in error were adjacent to the stimulus phoneme on the Formant 1 versus Formant 2 vowel charts. The /u/ was the most frequent substitution for several vowels.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah A. Vickers ◽  
Brian C. J. Moore ◽  
Arooj Majeed ◽  
Natalie Stephenson ◽  
Hala Alferaih ◽  
...  

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Lee Oelschlaeger ◽  
Daniel Orchik

Audiological data are presented for an 11-year-old aphasic girl with confirmed left-hemisphere damage. Pure-tone audiometry, impedance measurement, and speech discrimination testing were completed. Discrimination testing included presentation of the Word Intelligibility by Picture Identification (WIPI) test at 0 and 60% time compression. Results indicated significantly poorer speech discrimination in the ear contralateral to the site of lesion at 60% time compression. This case study supports the use of time-compressed speech discrimination testing in the assessment of central auditory function of children and as a diagnostic tool for determination of site of lesion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document