4.5 Article

Speech rate, rate-matching, and intelligibility in early-implanted cochlear implant users

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 142, 期 2, 页码 1043-1054

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.4998590

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [R01 DC009581, R01 DC000111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An important speech-language outcome for deaf people with cochlear implants is speech intelligibility-how well their speech is understood by others, which also affects social functioning. Beyond simply uttering recognizable words, other speech-language skills may affect communicative competence, including rate-matching or converging toward interlocutors' speech rates. This initial report examines speech rate-matching and its relations to intelligibility in 91 prelingually deaf cochlear implant users and 93 typically hearing peers age 3 to 27 years. Live-voice spoken sentences were repeated and later transcribed by multiple hearing listeners. Speech intelligibility was calculated as proportions of words correctly transcribed. For speech rate-matching measures, speech rates (syllables/s) were normalized as percentages faster or slower than examiners' speech rates. Cochlear implant users had slower speech rates, less accurate and less consistent rate-matching, and poorer speech intelligibility than hearing peers. Among cochlear implant users, speech rate and rate-matching were correlated with intelligibility: faster talkers and better rate-matchers were more intelligible. Rate-matching and intelligibility improved during preschool, with cochlear implant users delayed by about a year compared to hearing peers. By school-age, rate-matching and intelligibility were good overall, but delays persisted for many cochlear implant users. Interventions targeting rate-matching skills are therefore warranted in speech-language therapy for this population. (C) 2017 Acoustical Society of America.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据