Word segmentation in phonemically identical and prosodically different sequences using cochlear implants: A case study

References

• Cavé, C., Guaïtella, I., Bertrand, R., Santi, S., Harlay, F., & Espesser, R. (1996). About the relationship between eyebrow movements and F0 variations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 2175–2178.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, M., & Peng, S. C. (2008). Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hearing Research, 235(1), 143–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., & Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language, 2(3), 133–142.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 14(1), 113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marx, M., James, C., Foxton, J., Capber, A., Fraysse, B., Barone, P., & Deguine, O. (2015). Speech prosody perception in cochlear implant users with and without residual hearing. Ear and Hearing, 36(2), 239–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattys, S. L., White, L., & Melhorn, J. F. (2005). Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meister, H., Landwehr, M., Pyschny, V., Grugel, L., & Walger, M. (2011). Use of intonation contours for speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant recipients. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(5), EL204–EL209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munhall, K. G., Jones, J. A., Callan, D. E., Kuratate, T., & Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. (2004). Visual prosody and speech intelligibility. Head movement improves auditory speech perception. Psychological Science, 15(2), 133–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peelle, J. E., & Sommers, M. S. (2015). Prediction and constraint in audiovisual speech perception. Cortex, 68, 169–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, S. C., Chatterjee, M., & Lu, N. (2012). Acoustic cue integration in speech intonation recognition with cochlear implants. Trends in Hearing, 16(2), 67–82.
   Google Scholar
• Peng, S. C., Tomblin, J. B., & Turner, C. W. (2008). Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing. Ear and Hearing, 29(3), 336–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peppé, S. J. (2009). Why is prosody in speech-language pathology so difficult? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 258–271.
   Google Scholar
• Rouger, J., Lagleyre, S., Fraysse, B., Deneve, S., Deguine, O., & Barone, P. (2007). Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17), 7295–7300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• See, R. L., Driscoll, V. D., Gfeller, K., Kliethermes, S., & Oleson, J. (2013). Speech intonation and melodic contour recognition in children with cochlear implants and with normal hearing. Otology & Neurotology, 34(3), 490–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal, O., Houston, D., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2016). Auditory discrimination of lexical stress patterns in hearing-impaired infants with cochlear implants compared with normal hearing: influence of acoustic cues and listening experience to the ambient language. Ear and Hearing, 37(2), 225–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, D. P., & Ertmer, D. J. (2012). Children’s development of intonation during the first year of cochlear implant experience. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 26(1), 51–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli, E., Welby, P., & Schaegis, A. L. (2007). Fine-grained access to targets and competitors in phonemically identical spoken sequences: The case of French elision. Language & Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 828–859.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli, E., Grimault, N., Meunier, F., & Welby, P. (2010). An intonational cue to segmentation in phonemically identical sequences. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72(3), 775–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spitzer, S., Liss, J., Spahr, T., Dorman, M., & Lansford, K. (2009). The use of fundamental frequency for lexical segmentation in listeners with cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(6), EL236–EL241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauß, A., Savariaux, C., Kandel, S., & Schwartz, J. L. (2015). Visual lip information supports auditory word segmentation. In FAAVSP 2015. Vienna, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Swerts, M. (2009). The relevance of visual prosody for studies in language and speech-language pathology. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 282–286.
   Google Scholar
• Tourmel, M. (2007). Validation du PAV2L: évaluation de la Perception auditive verbale et de la lecture labiale de l’adulte devenu sourd (Undergraduate Dissertation). University of Lille 2, Lille.
   Google Scholar
• Van Zyl, M., & Hanekom, J. J. (2013). Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(5), 449–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welby, P. (2007). The role of early fundamental frequency rises and elbows in French word segmentation. Speech Communication, 49(1), 28–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, B. S., & Dorman, M. F. (2008). Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hearing Research, 242(1), 3–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar