Correlation between perceptual speech intelligibility and word duration in 4-6 years old children with cochlear implant
Background and Aim: The speech intelligibility is evaluated through the perceptual and acoustic methods. In the perceptual method, the speech intelligibility is investigated using the listener’s judgment. On the other hand, in the acoustic method, the acoustic parameters related to speech are studied. This study aimed to evaluate the association between the suprasegmental components and perceptual speech intelligibility through investigating the correlation between the mean duration of speech at the word level with the percentage of speech intelligibility in children with cochlear implant.
Methods: This study was conducted on 18 children with cochlear implant within the age range of 4-6 years. The participants were asked to repeat 30 selected Persian words displayed in a video show while their voices were recorded by a microphone. The evaluation of perceptual speech intelligibility was performed using the judgment of three listeners who were unfamiliar with the speech of the hearing impaired children. The speech duration was calculated through the Praat software version 5.2.25.
Results: According to the results, the mean of words duration was 0.5140±0.098 seconds and the mean percentage of the perceptual intelligibility of the selected words was 47.78%. Furthermore, the speech duration was significantly correlated with perceptual speech intelligibility (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The speech duration plays a prominent role in determining the speech intelligibility in the children with cochlear implant at the word level. Therefore, this method can be applied in the clinical rehabilitation programs implemented for these children to increase their speech intelligibility in an appropriate manner.
2. Baudonck N, D'haeseleer E, Dhooge I, Van Lierde K. Objective vocal quality in children using cochlear implants: a multiparameter approach. J Voice. 2011;25(6):683-91.
3. Webb W, Adler RK. Neurosensory organization of speech and hearing. In: Webb WG, Adler RK, editors. Neurology for the speech-language pathologist. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby/Elsevier; 2008. p. 146-7.
4. Dawson PW, Blamey PJ, Dettman SJ, Rowland LC, Barker EJ, Tobey EA, et al. A clinical report on speech production of cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 1995;16(6):551-61.
5. Cowie R, Douglas-Cowie E. Postlingually acquired deafness: speech deterioration and the wider consequences. 1st ed. New York: Mouton de Gruyter; 1992.
6. Monsen RB. Durational aspects of vowel production in the speech of deaf children. J Speech Hear Res. 1974;17(3):386-98.
7. Osberger MJ, McGarr NS. Speech production characteristics of the hearing impaired. In: Lass NJ, editor. Speecsh and language: advances in basic research and practice. New York: Academic Press; 1981. p. 221-84.
8. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Rivera IM. Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(4):904-15.
9. Iriondo I, Planet S, Socoró JC, Alías F. Objective and subjective evaluation of an expressive speech corpus. In: Chetouani M, Hussain A, Gas B, Milgram M, Zarader J, editors. Advances in Nonlinear Speech Processing. Berlin: Springer; 2007. p. 86-94.
10. Kord N, Shahbodaghi MR, Khodami SM, Norbakhash M, Jalaie S, Motesadi Zarandi M. Investigation of perception of intonation in primary school ages cochlear implant children and comparison with normal hearing children. Journal of Modern Rehabilitation. 2010;4(3,4):1-5. Persian.
11. Monsen RB, Shaughnessy DH. Improvement in vowel articulation of deaf children. J Commun Disord. 1978;11(5):417-24.
12. Jalil-Abkenar SS, Ashori M, Pourmohamadreza-Tajrishi M, Hasanzadeh S. Auditory perception and verbal intelligibility in children with cochlear implant, hearing aids and normal hearing. Practice in Clinical Psychology. 2013;1(3):141-7.
13. Wang NM, Huang TS, Wu CM, Kirk KI. Pediatric cochlear implantation in Taiwan: long-term communication outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71(11):1775-82.
14. Darouie A, Gholami Tehrani L, Pourshahbaz A, Hasanzadeh S, Rahgozar M. Possibility of replacing sentences repetition task for conversational speech in the intelligibility assessment of hearing impaired children. Speech and Language Pathology. 2014;1(2):19-26. Persian.
15. Moradi N, Maroufi N, Bijankhan M, Nik TH, Salavati M, Jalayer T, et al. Long-term average spectra of adult Iranian speakers' voice. J Voice. 2014;28(3):305-10.
16. Kent RD, Read C. The acoustic analysis of speech. 1st ed. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1992.
17. Nejime Y, Moore BC. Evaluation of the effect of speech-rate slowing on speech intelligibility in noise using a simulation of cochlear hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(1):572-6.
18. Tanaka A, Sakamoto S, Suzuki Y. Effects of pause duration and speech rate on sentence intelligibility in younger and older adult listeners. Acoust Sci Technol. 2011;32(6):264-7.
19. Girgin MC, Özsoy B. The relationship between formant frequency and duration characteristics of vowels and speech intelligibility in Turkish hearing impaired children. World Appl Sci J. 2008;4(6):891-9.
20. Tang Y, Cooke M, editors. Subjective and objective evaluation of speech intelligibility enhancement under constant energy and duration constraints. Proccedings of the Interspeech; 2011 Aug; Florence, Italy. p. 345–8.
21. Amano-Kusumoto A, Hosom JP. A review of research on speech intelligibility and correlations with acoustic features. CSLU-011-001, Technical Report, 2011. p. 1-16.
|Issue||Vol 26 No 2 (2017)|
|Duration perceptual intelligibility cochlear implant|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|