Linguistically guided adaptation to foreign-accented speech

Adaptation to foreign-accented sentences can be guided by knowledge of the lexical content of those sentences, which, being an exact match for the target, provides feedback on all linguistic levels. The extent to which this feedback needs to match the accented sentence was examined by manipulating the degree of match on different linguistic dimensions, including sub-lexical, lexical, and syntactic levels. Conditions where target-feedback sentence pairs matched and mismatched generated greater transcription improvement over non-English speech feedback, indicating listeners can draw upon sources of linguistic information beyond matching lexical items, such as sub- and supra-lexical information, during adaptation.

from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/140/5/10.1121/1.4966585?TRACK=RSS
via IFTTT

Unilateral Hearing Loss: Understanding Speech Recognition and Localization Variability-Implications for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.

Objectives: At a minimum, unilateral hearing loss (UHL) impairs sound localization ability and understanding speech in noisy environments, particularly if the loss is severe to profound. Accompanying the numerous negative consequences of UHL is considerable unexplained individual variability in the magnitude of its effects. Identification of covariables that affect outcome and contribute to variability in UHLs could augment counseling, treatment options, and rehabilitation. Cochlear implantation as a treatment for UHL is on the rise yet little is known about factors that could impact performance or whether there is a group at risk for poor cochlear implant outcomes when hearing is near-normal in one ear. The overall goal of our research is to investigate the range and source of variability in speech recognition in noise and localization among individuals with severe to profound UHL and thereby help determine factors relevant to decisions regarding cochlear implantation in this population. Design: The present study evaluated adults with severe to profound UHL and adults with bilateral normal hearing. Measures included adaptive sentence understanding in diffuse restaurant noise, localization, roving-source speech recognition (words from 1 of 15 speakers in a 140[degrees] arc), and an adaptive speech-reception threshold psychoacoustic task with varied noise types and noise-source locations. There were three age-sex-matched groups: UHL (severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear), normal hearing listening bilaterally, and normal hearing listening unilaterally. Results: Although the normal-hearing-bilateral group scored significantly better and had less performance variability than UHLs on all measures, some UHL participants scored within the range of the normal-hearing-bilateral group on all measures. The normal-hearing participants listening unilaterally had better monosyllabic word understanding than UHLs for words presented on the blocked/deaf side but not the open/hearing side. In contrast, UHLs localized better than the normal-hearing unilateral listeners for stimuli on the open/hearing side but not the blocked/deaf side. This suggests that UHLs had learned strategies for improved localization on the side of the intact ear. The UHL and unilateral normal-hearing participant groups were not significantly different for speech in noise measures. UHL participants with childhood rather than recent hearing loss onset localized significantly better; however, these two groups did not differ for speech recognition in noise. Age at onset in UHL adults appears to affect localization ability differently than understanding speech in noise. Hearing thresholds were significantly correlated with speech recognition for UHL participants but not the other two groups. Conclusions: Auditory abilities of UHLs varied widely and could be explained only in part by hearing threshold levels. Age at onset and length of hearing loss influenced performance on some, but not all measures. Results support the need for a revised and diverse set of clinical measures, including sound localization, understanding speech in varied environments, and careful consideration of functional abilities as individuals with severe to profound UHL are being considered potential cochlear implant candidates. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/9000/00000/Unilateral_Hearing_Loss___Understanding_Speech.99140.pdf
via IFTTT

Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children: Outcome of the Second Implant and Long-Term Use.

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess speech perception outcomes of second-side cochlear implants (CI2) relative to first-side implants (CI1) in 160 participants who received their CI1 as a child. The predictive factors of CI2 speech perception outcomes were investigated. In addition, CI2 device use predictive models were assessed using the categorical variable of participant's decision to use CI2 for a minimum of 5 years after surgery. Findings from a prospective study that evaluated the bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise in a participant subgroup (n = 29) are also presented. Design: Participants received CI2 between 2003 and 2009 (and CI1 between 1988 and 2008), and were observed from surgery to a minimum of 5 years after sequential surgery. Group A (n = 110) comprised prelingually deaf children (severe to profound) with no or little acquired oral language before implantation, while group B (n = 50) comprised prelingually deaf children with acquired language before implantation, in addition to perilingually and postlingually deaf children. Speech perception outcomes included the monosyllable test score or the closed-set Early Speech Perception test score if the monosyllable test was too difficult. To evaluate bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise, participants were tested with the Hearing in Noise test in bilateral and "best CI" test conditions with noise from the front and noise from either side. Bilateral advantage was calculated by subtracting the Hearing in Noise test speech reception thresholds in noise obtained in the bilateral listening mode from those obtained in the unilateral "best CI" mode. Results: On average, CI1 speech perception was 28% better than CI2 performance in group A, the same difference was 20% in group B. A small bilateral speech perception benefit of using CI2 was measured, 3% in group A and 7% in group B. Longer interimplant interval predicted poorer CI2 speech perception in group A, but only for those who did not use a hearing aid in the interimplant interval in group B. At least 5 years after surgery, 25% of group A and 10% of group B did not use CI2. In group A, prediction factors for nonuse of CI2 were longer interimplant intervals or CI2 age. Large difference in speech perception between the two sides was a predictor for CI2 nonuse in both groups. Bilateral advantage for speech recognition in noise was mainly obtained for the condition with noise near the "best CI"; the addition of a second CI offered a new head shadow benefit. A small mean disadvantage was measured when the noise was located opposite to the "best CI." However, the latter was not significant. Conclusions: Generally, in both groups, if CI2 did not become comparable with CI1, participants were more likely to choose not to use CI2 after some time. In group A, increased interimplant intervals predicted poorer CI2 speech perception results and increased the risk of not using CI2 at a later date. Bilateral benefit was mainly obtained when noise was opposite to CI2, introducing a new head shadow benefit. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/9000/00000/Sequential_Bilateral_Cochlear_Implantation_in.99139.pdf
via IFTTT

Unilateral Hearing Loss: Understanding Speech Recognition and Localization Variability-Implications for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.

Objectives: At a minimum, unilateral hearing loss (UHL) impairs sound localization ability and understanding speech in noisy environments, particularly if the loss is severe to profound. Accompanying the numerous negative consequences of UHL is considerable unexplained individual variability in the magnitude of its effects. Identification of covariables that affect outcome and contribute to variability in UHLs could augment counseling, treatment options, and rehabilitation. Cochlear implantation as a treatment for UHL is on the rise yet little is known about factors that could impact performance or whether there is a group at risk for poor cochlear implant outcomes when hearing is near-normal in one ear. The overall goal of our research is to investigate the range and source of variability in speech recognition in noise and localization among individuals with severe to profound UHL and thereby help determine factors relevant to decisions regarding cochlear implantation in this population. Design: The present study evaluated adults with severe to profound UHL and adults with bilateral normal hearing. Measures included adaptive sentence understanding in diffuse restaurant noise, localization, roving-source speech recognition (words from 1 of 15 speakers in a 140[degrees] arc), and an adaptive speech-reception threshold psychoacoustic task with varied noise types and noise-source locations. There were three age-sex-matched groups: UHL (severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear), normal hearing listening bilaterally, and normal hearing listening unilaterally. Results: Although the normal-hearing-bilateral group scored significantly better and had less performance variability than UHLs on all measures, some UHL participants scored within the range of the normal-hearing-bilateral group on all measures. The normal-hearing participants listening unilaterally had better monosyllabic word understanding than UHLs for words presented on the blocked/deaf side but not the open/hearing side. In contrast, UHLs localized better than the normal-hearing unilateral listeners for stimuli on the open/hearing side but not the blocked/deaf side. This suggests that UHLs had learned strategies for improved localization on the side of the intact ear. The UHL and unilateral normal-hearing participant groups were not significantly different for speech in noise measures. UHL participants with childhood rather than recent hearing loss onset localized significantly better; however, these two groups did not differ for speech recognition in noise. Age at onset in UHL adults appears to affect localization ability differently than understanding speech in noise. Hearing thresholds were significantly correlated with speech recognition for UHL participants but not the other two groups. Conclusions: Auditory abilities of UHLs varied widely and could be explained only in part by hearing threshold levels. Age at onset and length of hearing loss influenced performance on some, but not all measures. Results support the need for a revised and diverse set of clinical measures, including sound localization, understanding speech in varied environments, and careful consideration of functional abilities as individuals with severe to profound UHL are being considered potential cochlear implant candidates. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/9000/00000/Unilateral_Hearing_Loss___Understanding_Speech.99140.pdf
via IFTTT

Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children: Outcome of the Second Implant and Long-Term Use.

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess speech perception outcomes of second-side cochlear implants (CI2) relative to first-side implants (CI1) in 160 participants who received their CI1 as a child. The predictive factors of CI2 speech perception outcomes were investigated. In addition, CI2 device use predictive models were assessed using the categorical variable of participant's decision to use CI2 for a minimum of 5 years after surgery. Findings from a prospective study that evaluated the bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise in a participant subgroup (n = 29) are also presented. Design: Participants received CI2 between 2003 and 2009 (and CI1 between 1988 and 2008), and were observed from surgery to a minimum of 5 years after sequential surgery. Group A (n = 110) comprised prelingually deaf children (severe to profound) with no or little acquired oral language before implantation, while group B (n = 50) comprised prelingually deaf children with acquired language before implantation, in addition to perilingually and postlingually deaf children. Speech perception outcomes included the monosyllable test score or the closed-set Early Speech Perception test score if the monosyllable test was too difficult. To evaluate bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise, participants were tested with the Hearing in Noise test in bilateral and "best CI" test conditions with noise from the front and noise from either side. Bilateral advantage was calculated by subtracting the Hearing in Noise test speech reception thresholds in noise obtained in the bilateral listening mode from those obtained in the unilateral "best CI" mode. Results: On average, CI1 speech perception was 28% better than CI2 performance in group A, the same difference was 20% in group B. A small bilateral speech perception benefit of using CI2 was measured, 3% in group A and 7% in group B. Longer interimplant interval predicted poorer CI2 speech perception in group A, but only for those who did not use a hearing aid in the interimplant interval in group B. At least 5 years after surgery, 25% of group A and 10% of group B did not use CI2. In group A, prediction factors for nonuse of CI2 were longer interimplant intervals or CI2 age. Large difference in speech perception between the two sides was a predictor for CI2 nonuse in both groups. Bilateral advantage for speech recognition in noise was mainly obtained for the condition with noise near the "best CI"; the addition of a second CI offered a new head shadow benefit. A small mean disadvantage was measured when the noise was located opposite to the "best CI." However, the latter was not significant. Conclusions: Generally, in both groups, if CI2 did not become comparable with CI1, participants were more likely to choose not to use CI2 after some time. In group A, increased interimplant intervals predicted poorer CI2 speech perception results and increased the risk of not using CI2 at a later date. Bilateral benefit was mainly obtained when noise was opposite to CI2, introducing a new head shadow benefit. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/9000/00000/Sequential_Bilateral_Cochlear_Implantation_in.99139.pdf
via IFTTT

Unilateral Hearing Loss: Understanding Speech Recognition and Localization Variability-Implications for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.

Objectives: At a minimum, unilateral hearing loss (UHL) impairs sound localization ability and understanding speech in noisy environments, particularly if the loss is severe to profound. Accompanying the numerous negative consequences of UHL is considerable unexplained individual variability in the magnitude of its effects. Identification of covariables that affect outcome and contribute to variability in UHLs could augment counseling, treatment options, and rehabilitation. Cochlear implantation as a treatment for UHL is on the rise yet little is known about factors that could impact performance or whether there is a group at risk for poor cochlear implant outcomes when hearing is near-normal in one ear. The overall goal of our research is to investigate the range and source of variability in speech recognition in noise and localization among individuals with severe to profound UHL and thereby help determine factors relevant to decisions regarding cochlear implantation in this population. Design: The present study evaluated adults with severe to profound UHL and adults with bilateral normal hearing. Measures included adaptive sentence understanding in diffuse restaurant noise, localization, roving-source speech recognition (words from 1 of 15 speakers in a 140[degrees] arc), and an adaptive speech-reception threshold psychoacoustic task with varied noise types and noise-source locations. There were three age-sex-matched groups: UHL (severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear), normal hearing listening bilaterally, and normal hearing listening unilaterally. Results: Although the normal-hearing-bilateral group scored significantly better and had less performance variability than UHLs on all measures, some UHL participants scored within the range of the normal-hearing-bilateral group on all measures. The normal-hearing participants listening unilaterally had better monosyllabic word understanding than UHLs for words presented on the blocked/deaf side but not the open/hearing side. In contrast, UHLs localized better than the normal-hearing unilateral listeners for stimuli on the open/hearing side but not the blocked/deaf side. This suggests that UHLs had learned strategies for improved localization on the side of the intact ear. The UHL and unilateral normal-hearing participant groups were not significantly different for speech in noise measures. UHL participants with childhood rather than recent hearing loss onset localized significantly better; however, these two groups did not differ for speech recognition in noise. Age at onset in UHL adults appears to affect localization ability differently than understanding speech in noise. Hearing thresholds were significantly correlated with speech recognition for UHL participants but not the other two groups. Conclusions: Auditory abilities of UHLs varied widely and could be explained only in part by hearing threshold levels. Age at onset and length of hearing loss influenced performance on some, but not all measures. Results support the need for a revised and diverse set of clinical measures, including sound localization, understanding speech in varied environments, and careful consideration of functional abilities as individuals with severe to profound UHL are being considered potential cochlear implant candidates. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/9000/00000/Unilateral_Hearing_Loss___Understanding_Speech.99140.pdf
via IFTTT

Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children: Outcome of the Second Implant and Long-Term Use.

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess speech perception outcomes of second-side cochlear implants (CI2) relative to first-side implants (CI1) in 160 participants who received their CI1 as a child. The predictive factors of CI2 speech perception outcomes were investigated. In addition, CI2 device use predictive models were assessed using the categorical variable of participant's decision to use CI2 for a minimum of 5 years after surgery. Findings from a prospective study that evaluated the bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise in a participant subgroup (n = 29) are also presented. Design: Participants received CI2 between 2003 and 2009 (and CI1 between 1988 and 2008), and were observed from surgery to a minimum of 5 years after sequential surgery. Group A (n = 110) comprised prelingually deaf children (severe to profound) with no or little acquired oral language before implantation, while group B (n = 50) comprised prelingually deaf children with acquired language before implantation, in addition to perilingually and postlingually deaf children. Speech perception outcomes included the monosyllable test score or the closed-set Early Speech Perception test score if the monosyllable test was too difficult. To evaluate bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise, participants were tested with the Hearing in Noise test in bilateral and "best CI" test conditions with noise from the front and noise from either side. Bilateral advantage was calculated by subtracting the Hearing in Noise test speech reception thresholds in noise obtained in the bilateral listening mode from those obtained in the unilateral "best CI" mode. Results: On average, CI1 speech perception was 28% better than CI2 performance in group A, the same difference was 20% in group B. A small bilateral speech perception benefit of using CI2 was measured, 3% in group A and 7% in group B. Longer interimplant interval predicted poorer CI2 speech perception in group A, but only for those who did not use a hearing aid in the interimplant interval in group B. At least 5 years after surgery, 25% of group A and 10% of group B did not use CI2. In group A, prediction factors for nonuse of CI2 were longer interimplant intervals or CI2 age. Large difference in speech perception between the two sides was a predictor for CI2 nonuse in both groups. Bilateral advantage for speech recognition in noise was mainly obtained for the condition with noise near the "best CI"; the addition of a second CI offered a new head shadow benefit. A small mean disadvantage was measured when the noise was located opposite to the "best CI." However, the latter was not significant. Conclusions: Generally, in both groups, if CI2 did not become comparable with CI1, participants were more likely to choose not to use CI2 after some time. In group A, increased interimplant intervals predicted poorer CI2 speech perception results and increased the risk of not using CI2 at a later date. Bilateral benefit was mainly obtained when noise was opposite to CI2, introducing a new head shadow benefit. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/9000/00000/Sequential_Bilateral_Cochlear_Implantation_in.99139.pdf
via IFTTT