听力障碍儿童的可识别性

IF 0.6 Q3 LINGUISTICS Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics Pub Date : 2019-10-24 DOI:10.1075/dujal.18017.boo
Nathalie Boonen, H. Kloots, S. Gillis
{"title":"听力障碍儿童的可识别性","authors":"Nathalie Boonen, H. Kloots, S. Gillis","doi":"10.1075/dujal.18017.boo","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Studies on the speech and language development of hearing-impaired children often focus on (deviations in) the\n children’s speech production. However, it is unclear if listeners also perceive differences\n between the speech of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children. This contribution wants to fill this void by investigating\n the overall perceived speech quality of both groups. Three groups of listeners (speech and language pathologists, primary school\n teachers and inexperienced listeners) judged 126 utterances of seven normally hearing children, seven children with an acoustic\n hearing aid and seven children with a cochlear implant, in a comparative judgment task. All children were approximately seven\n years old and received, in the case of the hearing-impaired children, their assistive hearing device before the age of two.\n The online tool D-PAC was used to administer the comparative judgement task. The listeners compared stimuli in\n pairs and decided which stimulus sounded best. This method ultimately leads to a ranking in which all stimuli are represented\n according to their overall perceived speech quality.\n The main result is that the speech of normally hearing children was preferred by the listeners. This indicates\n that, even after several years of device use, the speech quality of hearing-impaired children is perceived as different from that\n of normally hearing children. Within the group of hearing-impaired children, cochlear implanted children were judged to exhibit\n higher speech quality than acoustically hearing aided children, especially after a longer device use. The speech quality of the\n latter group, on the other hand, remained practically stable. Listeners, irrespectively of their degree of experience with\n (hearing-impaired) children’s speech, completed the task similarly. In other words: the difference between the overall perceived\n speech quality of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children is salient for all listener groups and they all slightly\n preferred children with a cochlear implant over children with an acoustic hearing aid.","PeriodicalId":42420,"journal":{"name":"Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identificeerbaarheid van kinderen met een gehoorbeperking\",\"authors\":\"Nathalie Boonen, H. Kloots, S. Gillis\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/dujal.18017.boo\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Studies on the speech and language development of hearing-impaired children often focus on (deviations in) the\\n children’s speech production. However, it is unclear if listeners also perceive differences\\n between the speech of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children. This contribution wants to fill this void by investigating\\n the overall perceived speech quality of both groups. Three groups of listeners (speech and language pathologists, primary school\\n teachers and inexperienced listeners) judged 126 utterances of seven normally hearing children, seven children with an acoustic\\n hearing aid and seven children with a cochlear implant, in a comparative judgment task. All children were approximately seven\\n years old and received, in the case of the hearing-impaired children, their assistive hearing device before the age of two.\\n The online tool D-PAC was used to administer the comparative judgement task. The listeners compared stimuli in\\n pairs and decided which stimulus sounded best. This method ultimately leads to a ranking in which all stimuli are represented\\n according to their overall perceived speech quality.\\n The main result is that the speech of normally hearing children was preferred by the listeners. This indicates\\n that, even after several years of device use, the speech quality of hearing-impaired children is perceived as different from that\\n of normally hearing children. Within the group of hearing-impaired children, cochlear implanted children were judged to exhibit\\n higher speech quality than acoustically hearing aided children, especially after a longer device use. The speech quality of the\\n latter group, on the other hand, remained practically stable. Listeners, irrespectively of their degree of experience with\\n (hearing-impaired) children’s speech, completed the task similarly. In other words: the difference between the overall perceived\\n speech quality of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children is salient for all listener groups and they all slightly\\n preferred children with a cochlear implant over children with an acoustic hearing aid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对听障儿童的言语和语言发展的研究往往集中在儿童言语产生(偏差)上。然而,尚不清楚听者是否也能感知到正常听力儿童和听力受损儿童之间的语言差异。这篇论文希望通过调查两组人的整体感知语音质量来填补这一空白。在一项比较判断任务中,三组听者(言语和语言病理学家、小学教师和没有经验的听者)分别对7名听力正常的儿童、7名戴助听器的儿童和7名戴人工耳蜗的儿童的126个话语进行判断。所有的孩子大约七岁,听力受损的孩子在两岁之前就接受了助听器。使用在线工具D-PAC管理比较判断任务。听众两人一组比较刺激,并决定哪个刺激听起来最好。这种方法最终导致了一个排序,所有的刺激都是根据他们的整体感知语音质量来表示的。主要结果是听者更喜欢正常听力儿童的语言。这表明,即使经过几年的设备使用,听力受损儿童的语言质量被认为与正常听力儿童不同。在听力受损儿童组中,人工耳蜗植入儿童被认为比声学助听儿童表现出更高的语言质量,特别是在长时间使用设备后。另一方面,后一组的语音质量几乎保持稳定。听者,不管他们对(听障)儿童讲话的经验程度如何,都完成了类似的任务。换句话说:听力正常儿童和听力受损儿童的整体感知语言质量之间的差异在所有听众群体中都是显著的,他们都稍微更喜欢人工耳蜗儿童而不是使用声学助听器的儿童。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Identificeerbaarheid van kinderen met een gehoorbeperking
Studies on the speech and language development of hearing-impaired children often focus on (deviations in) the children’s speech production. However, it is unclear if listeners also perceive differences between the speech of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children. This contribution wants to fill this void by investigating the overall perceived speech quality of both groups. Three groups of listeners (speech and language pathologists, primary school teachers and inexperienced listeners) judged 126 utterances of seven normally hearing children, seven children with an acoustic hearing aid and seven children with a cochlear implant, in a comparative judgment task. All children were approximately seven years old and received, in the case of the hearing-impaired children, their assistive hearing device before the age of two. The online tool D-PAC was used to administer the comparative judgement task. The listeners compared stimuli in pairs and decided which stimulus sounded best. This method ultimately leads to a ranking in which all stimuli are represented according to their overall perceived speech quality. The main result is that the speech of normally hearing children was preferred by the listeners. This indicates that, even after several years of device use, the speech quality of hearing-impaired children is perceived as different from that of normally hearing children. Within the group of hearing-impaired children, cochlear implanted children were judged to exhibit higher speech quality than acoustically hearing aided children, especially after a longer device use. The speech quality of the latter group, on the other hand, remained practically stable. Listeners, irrespectively of their degree of experience with (hearing-impaired) children’s speech, completed the task similarly. In other words: the difference between the overall perceived speech quality of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children is salient for all listener groups and they all slightly preferred children with a cochlear implant over children with an acoustic hearing aid.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: The Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics (DuJAL) focuses on promoting Dutch and Belgian work in applied linguistics among an international audience, but also welcomes contributions from other countries. It caters for both the academic society in the field and for language and communication experts working in other contexts, such as institutions involved in language policy, teacher training, curriculum development, assessment, and educational and communication consultancy. DuJAL is the digital continuation of Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, which had been the journal of Anéla, the Dutch Association of Applied Linguistics, for forty years. Like its predecessor, DuJAL wants to offer a platform to young researchers in applied linguistics, i.e. PhD candidates and MA students. In order to maintain a high standard all submissions are subjected to a ‘double blind’ review by at least one external reviewer and two of the editors. Contributions may be written in Dutch, English, German or French.
期刊最新文献
Teaching text structure in science education Examining accent bias towards Turkish speakers of Dutch Addressing the student Miss Belgium, Coca-Cola and Flemish carwashes Better catch them young, but how?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1