Measuring effectiveness of semantic cues in degraded English sentences in non-native listeners

References

• Akker E. & Cutler A. 2003. Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Biling Lang Cogn, 6, 81–96.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI. 2010. ANSI-S3.6-2004, Specifications for Audiometers. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Best C. & Strange W. 1992. Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. J Phon, 20, 305–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilger R.C., Nuetzel J.M., Rabinowitz W.M. & Rzeczkowski. C. 1984. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 32–48.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boothroyd A. & Nittrouer S. 1988. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoustic Soc Am, 84, 101–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradlow A.R. & Bent T. 2002. The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. J Acoustic Soc Am, 112, 272–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W., Brand T. & Wegener K. 2002. Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoustic Soc Am, 111, 2874–2876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell A. & Nittrouer S. 2013. Speech perception in noise by children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 56, 13–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillside, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler A., Weber A., Smits R. & Cooper N. 2004. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoustic Soc Am, 116, 3668–3678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Divenyi P.L., Stark P.B. & Haupt K.M. 1995. Decline of speech understanding and auditory thresholds in the Elderly. J Acoustic Soc Am, 118, 1089–1100.
   Google Scholar
• Flege J.E. 1995. Cross-language studies of speech perception: A historical review. In: W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Speech Research (pp. 233–273). Timonium, USA: York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia Lecumberri M.L. & Cooke M. 2006. Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. J Acoustic Soc Am, 119, 2445–2554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Burke M.H., Coughlin M.P., Busey T.A. & Strauser L.E. 2007. Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: Similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 283–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Watson B.U., Christensen L.A., Cokely C.G., Halling D.C. et al. 1994. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res, 37, 465–474.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iverson P., Kuhl P.K., Akahane-Yamada R., Diesch E., Yohkura Y. et al. 2003. A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, B47–B57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffreys H. 1946. An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 186 (1007), 453–461.
   Google Scholar
• Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N. & Elliott L.L. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoustic Soc Am, 61, 1337–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marian V., Blumenfeld H.K. & Kaushanskaya M. 2007. The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 940–967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattys S.L., Carroll L.M., Li C.K.W. & Chan S.L.Y. 2010. Effects of energetic and informational masking on speech segmentation by native and non-native speakers. Speech Commun, 52, 887–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo L.H., Florentine M. & Buus S. 1997. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 40, 686–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nittrouer S. & Boothroyd A. 1990. Context effects on phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J Acoustic Soc Am, 84, 101–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen W.O., Van Tasell D.J. & Speaks C.E. 1997. Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences. Ear Hear, 18, 175–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders L.D., Neville H.J. & Woldorff M.G. 2002, Speech segmentation by native and non-native speakers: The use of lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 519–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandridge S.A., Newman C.W., Spitzer J.B. & Katz E. 2005. Development of a new test of speech perception: Normative data. Poster presented at American Auditory Society Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, March, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Schum D.J. & Matthews L.J. 1992. SPIN test performance of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 3, 303–307.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi L-F. 2010. Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 53, 821–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L-F. 2011. How “proficient” is proficient? Subjective proficiency measure as a predictor of bilingual listeners’ recognition of English words. Am J Audiol, 19, 19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Shi L-F. 2012. Contribution of linguistic variables to bilingual listeners’ perception of degraded English sentences. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 219–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L-F. & Doherty K.A. 2008. Subjective and objective effects of the fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 1328–1340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L-F. & Farooq N. 2012. Bilingual listeners’ perception of temporally manipulated English passages. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 125–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart A., Zhang J. & Swink S. 2010. Reception thresholds for sentences in quiet and noise for monolingual English and bilingual Mandarin-English listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 239–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takata Y. & Nábělek A.K. 1990. English consonant recognition in noise and in reverberation by Japanese and American listeners. J Acoustic Soc Am, 88, 663–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Hapsburg D. & Bahng J. 2006. Acceptance of background noise levels in bilingual (Korean-English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 649–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Hapsburg D., Champlin C.A. & Shetty S.R. 2004. Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 88–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weiss D. & Dempsey J.J. 2008. Performance of bilingual speakers on the English and Spanish versions of the hearing in noise test (HINT). J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 5–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., McArdle R., Watts K.L. & Smith S.L. 2012, The revised speech perception in noise test (R-SPIN) in a multiple signal-to-noise ratio paradigm. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 590–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar