Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(07): 521-530
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19029
Research Article

Effect of Competition, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Race, and Sex on Southern American English Dialect Talkers' Sentence Recognition

Andrew Stuart
1   East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Yolanda F. Holt
1   East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Alyssa N. Kerls
1   East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Madeline R. Smith
1   East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Although numerous studies have examined regional and racial–ethnic labeling of talker identity, few have evaluated speech perception skills of listeners from the southern United States.

Purpose The objective of the study was to examine the effect of competition, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), race, and sex on sentence recognition performance in talkers from the Southern American English dialect region.

Research Design A four-factor mixed-measures design was used.

Study Sample Forty-eight normal-hearing young African American and White adults participated.

Data Collection and Analyses The Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set was used in quiet and in continuous and interrupted noise and multitalker babble at SNRs of −10, −5, 0, and 5 dB.

Results Significant main effects of competition (p < 0.001) and SNR (p < 0.001) and a competition by SNR interaction were found (p < 0.001). Performance improved with increasing SNRs. Performance was also greater in the interrupted broadband noise at poorer SNRs, relative to the other competitors. Multitalker babble performance was significantly poorer than the continuous noise at the poorer SNRs. There was no effect of race or sex on performance in quiet or competition.

Conclusions Although African American English and White American English talkers living in the same geographic region demonstrate differences in speech production, their speech perception in noise does not appear to differ under the conditions examined in this study.

Key words

dialect - multitalker babble - noise - sentence recognition

Notes

This work was presented in part at the 2018 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention, Boston, MA.




Publication History

Article published online:
02 September 2020

© 2020. Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 American Academy of Audiology (AAA). American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. 2010 http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/CAPD%20Guidelines%208-2010.pdf_539952af956c79.73897613.pdf . Accessed September 14, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6-2010). New York, NY: ANSI; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 3 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Hearing Aids for Adults. https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid58589935381&section5Key_Issues#Assessment . Accessed September 14, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Bess FH. Clinical assessment of speech recognition. In: Konkle DF, Rintlemann WF. , eds. Principles of Speech Audiometry. Baltimore, MD: University of Park Press; 1983: 125-201
    Google Scholar
  • 5 British Society of Audiology (BSA). Practice Guidance Assessment of Speech Understanding in Noise in Adults with Hearing Difficulties. 2019 https://www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/OD104-80-BSA-Practice-Guidance-Speech-in-Noise-FINAL.Feb-2019.pdf . Accessed September 14, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 2527-2538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Carhart R, Johnson C, Goodman J. Perceptual masking of spondees by combinations of talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 1975; 58: S35
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Danhauer JL, Leppler JG. Effects of four noise competitors on the California consonant test. J Speech Hear Disord 1979; 44: 354-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dirks DD, Wilson RH, Bower DR. Effect of pulsed masking on selected speech materials. J Acoust Soc Am 1969; 46: 898-906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Duquesnoy AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74: 739-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Durlach NI, Mason CR, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Arbogast TL, Colburn HS, Kidd Jr. G. Informational masking: counteracting the effects of stimulus uncertainty by decreasing targetmasker similarity. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114: 368-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Faulkner KF, Tamati TN, Gilbert JL, Pisoni DB. List equivalency of PRESTO for the evaluation of speech recognition. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26: 582-594
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 1725-1736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109: 2112-2122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115: 2246-2256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Garofolo JS, Lamel LF, Fisher WM, Fiscus JG, Pallett DS, Dahlgren NL. DARPA TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Gilbert JL, Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Development, reliability, and validity of PRESTO: a new high-variability sentence recognition test. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24: 26-36
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Green LJ. African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Helfer KS, Freyman RL. Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 87-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hoen M, Meunier F, Grataloup CL, Pellegrino F, Grimault N, Perrin F, Perrot X, Collet L. Phonetic and lexical interferences in informational masking during speech-in-speech comprehension. Speech Commun 2007; 49: 905-916
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Holt YF. Mechanisms of vowel variation in African American English. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61: 197-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Holt LL, Lotto AJ. Cue weighting in auditory categorization: implications for first and second language acquisition. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 119: 3059-3071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jacobi I, Sheikh MRashid, de Laat JAPM, Dreschler WA. Age dependence of thresholds for speech in noise in normal-hearing adolescents. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216517743641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Keppel G, Wickens TD. Analytical comparisons among treatment means. In: Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2004: 60-87
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Kidd Jr. G, Mason CR, Rohtla TL, Deliwala PS. Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 422-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Labov W. Principles of Linguistic Change Volume 1: Internal Factors (Language in Society 20). Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Labov W, Ash S. Understanding Birmingham. In: Bernstein C, Nunnally T, Sabino R. , eds. Language Variety in the South Revisited. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press; 1997: 508-573
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Labov W, Ash S, Boberg C. The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Labov W, Yaeger M, Steiner R. A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Philadelphia, PA: US Regional Survey; 1972
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Liu D, Shi LF. Performance-intensity functions of Mandarin word recognition tests in noise: test dialect and listener language effects. Am J Audiol 2013; 22: 147-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Maxwell SE, Delaney HD, Kelley K. Individual comparisons of means. In: Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. 3rd ed.. New York, NY: Routledge; 2018: 170-215
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Miller GA. The masking of speech. Psychol Bull 1947; 44: 105-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Miller GA, Licklider CR. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1950; 22: 167-173
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nissen SL, Harris RW, Channell RW, Richardson NE, Garlick JA, Eggett DL. The effect of dialect on speech audiometry testing. Am J Audiol 2013; 22: 233-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Plotkowski AR, Alexander JM. A sequential sentence paradigm using revised PRESTO sentence lists. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27: 647-660
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Pollack I. Masking by periodically interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1955; 27: 353-355
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ribera JE. Functional hearing in noise: insert earphones vs supra-aural headphones. Aviat Space Environ Med 2007; 78: 1159-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rosen S, Souza P, Ekelund C, Majeed AA. Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 133: 2431-2443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Roup CM, Wiley TL, Safady SH, Stoppenbach DT. Tympanometric screening norms for adults. Am J Audiol 1998; 7: 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Sbompato AF, Corteletti LC, Moret LAde. Hearing in noise test Brazil: standardization for young adults with normal hearing. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2015; 81: 384-388
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Shi LF, Canizales LA. Dialectal effects on a clinical Spanish word recognition test. Am J Audiol 2013; 22: 74-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Simpson SA, Cooke M. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118: 2775-2778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Stuart A. An investigation of list equivalency of the north-western university auditory test no 6 in interrupted broadband noise. Am J Audiol 2004; 13: 23-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Stuart A. Development of auditory temporal resolution in school-age children revealed by word recognition in continuous and interrupted noise. Ear Hear 2005; 26: 78-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Stuart A. Reception thresholds for sentences in quiet, continuous noise, and interrupted noise in school-age children. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19: 135-146
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Stuart A, Butler AK. Contralateral suppression of transient otoacoustic emissions and sentence recognition in noise in young adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23: 686-696
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Stuart A, Butler AK. No learning effect observed for reception thresholds for sentences in noise. Am J Audiol 2014; 23: 227-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Stuart A, Givens GD, Walker LJ, Elangovan S. Auditory temporal resolution in normal hearing preschool children revealed by word recognition in continuous and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 119: 1946-1949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Stuart A, Phillips DP. Word recognition in continuous and interrupted broadband noise by young normal-hearing, older normal-hearing, and presbyacusic listeners. Ear Hear 1996; 17: 478-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Stuart A, Phillips DP. Deficits in auditory temporal resolution revealed by a comparison of word recognition under interrupted and continuous noise masking. Semin Hear 1998; 19: 333-344
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Stuart A, Phillips DP, Green WB. Word recognition performance in continuous and interrupted broad-band noise by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners. Am J Otol 1995; 16: 658-663
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Stuart A, Zhang J, Swink S. Reception thresholds for sentences in quiet and noise for monolingual English and bilingual Mandarin-English listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21: 239-248
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Tamati TN, Gilbert JL, Pisoni DB. Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24: 616-634
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Non-native listeners' recognition of high-variability speech using PRESTO. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25: 869-892
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Theunissen M, Swanepoel de W, Hanekom J. Sentence recognition in noise: variables in compilation and interpretation of tests. Int J Audiol 2009; 48: 743-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Thomas ER. Spectral differences in/ai/offsets conditioned by voicing of the following consonant. J Phonetics 2000; 28: 1-25
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Thornton AR, Raffin MJ. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1978; 21: 507-518
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Wagenaar VA. Note on the construction of digram-balanced Latin squares. Psychol Bull 1969; 72 (06) 384-386
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Willis C. Perception of vowel phonemes in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada, and Buffalo, New York: an application of synthetic vowel categorization tests to dialectology. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1972; 15: 246-255
    Google Scholar