scholarly journals Infant speech‐discrimination testing: Effect of stimulus intensity and methodological model on estimates of performance

1986 ◽  
Vol 79 (S1) ◽  
pp. S53-S53
Author(s):  
Robert J. Nozza
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Intensity ◽  
Testing Effect ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
Infant Speech

Cross-linguistic perception in infancy: early effects of linguistic experience

1982 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca E. Eilers ◽  
William J. Gavin ◽  
D. Kimbrough Oller
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Early Experience ◽  
English Learning ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Linguistic Experience ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Infant Speech Perception ◽  
Infant Speech ◽  
Early Effects

ABSTRACTThe possibility that early linguistic experience affects infant speech perception was investigated in a cross-linguistic study with naturally produced speech stimuli. Using the Visually Reinforced Infant Speech Discrimination paradigm, three contrasts were presented to Spanish-and English-learning infants 6–8 months of age. Both groups of infants showed statistically significant discrimination of two contrasts, English and Czech. Only the Spanish-learning infants provided evidence of discrimination of the Spanish contrast. The groups discriminated the English contrast at similarly high levels, but the Spanish-learning infants showed significantly higher performance than the English on both the Spanish and the Czech contrast. The results indicate that early experience does affect early discrimination, and further (since the stimuli were natural) that the effect may be of practical consequence in language learning.

The Development of Constant Items for Speech Discrimination Testing

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 656-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Owens ◽  
Earl D. Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Response System ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Manner Of Articulation

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.

Vowel Discrimination of Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 648-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Owens ◽  
Carolyn B. Talbott ◽  
Earl D. Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
General Lack ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Response System ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
Vowel Discrimination

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.

Developmental Changes in Speech Discrimination in Infants

1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 766-780 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca E. Eilers ◽  
Wesley R. Wilson ◽  
John M. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
High Amplitude ◽  
Developmental Changes ◽  
Acoustic Cues ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Discriminatory Ability ◽  
Infant Speech

A visually reinforced infant speech discrimination (VRISD) paradigm is described and evaluated. Infants at two ages were tested with the new paradigm on the following speech contrasts: [sa] vs [va], [sa] vs [∫a], [sa] vs [za], [as] vs [a:z], [a:s], vs [a:z], [at] vs [a:d], [a:t] vs [a:d], [at] vs [a:t], [fa] vs [θa], and [fi] vs [θi]. The data reported are compared with data on the same speech contrasts obtained from three month olds in a high-amplitude sucking paradigm. Evidence suggesting developmental changes in speech-sound discriminatory ability is reported. Results are interpreted in light of salience of available acoustic cues and in terms of new methodological advances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document