Nonsense Syllable Recognition Research Articles

Phoneme feature perception in noise by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners perceive phoneme features differently in noise and to determine whether phoneme perception changes as a function of signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). Consonant-vowel recognition by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners was assessed in quiet and in three noise conditions. Analysis of total percent correct recognition scores revealed significant effects of hearing status, S/N, and vowel context. Patterns of phoneme errors were analyzed by INDSCAL. Derived consonant features that accounted for phoneme errors by both subject groups were similar to ones reported by other investigators. However, weightings associated with the individual features varied with changes in noise condition. Although hearing-impaired listeners exhibited poorer overall nonsense syllable recognition scores in noise than normal-hearing listeners, no specific set of features emerged from the multidimensional scaling procedures that could uniquely account for this performance deficit.

Recognition of digitized CV syllables in multitalker babble.

Nonsense syllable recognition by 10 normal-hearing listeners was assessed in quiet and three levels of multitalker babble. Stimuli were 19 consonants paired with /a/, /i/, and /u/ in a CV format. Performance measures included total syllable recognition, consonant feature-class recognition, and consonant feature errors. Results of each analysis were strongly affected by vowel coarticulation and noise level. However, a distinctive pattern of performance in the babble was observed. Comparisons are made between this pattern and those obtained previously in other types of noise backgrounds. Implications for clinical evaluation and auditory training are discussed.

Speech recognition in a special case of low-frequency hearing loss.

Recognition of speech stimuli consisting of monosyllabic words, sentences, and nonsense syllables was tested in normal subjects and in a subject with a low-frequency sensorineural hearing loss characterized by an absence of functioning sensory units in the apical region of the cochlea, as determined in a previous experiment [C. W. Turner, E. M. Burns, and D. A. Nelson, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73, 966-975 (1983)]. Performance of all subjects was close to 100% correct for all stimuli presented unfiltered at a moderate intensity level. When stimuli were low-pass filtered, performance of the hearing-impaired subject fell below that of the normals, but was still considerably above chance. A further diminution in the impaired subject's recognition of nonsense syllables resulted from the addition of a high-pass masking noise, indicating that his performance in the filtered quiet condition was attributable in large part to the contribution of sensory units in basal and midcochlear regions. Normals' performance was also somewhat decreased by the masker, suggesting that they also may have been extracting some low-frequency speech cues from responses of sensory units located in the base of the cochlea.

Adult age differences in word and nonsense syllable recognition memory and response criterion.

Adult age differences in word and nonsense syllable recognition memory and response criterion.

Recall and Recognition of Nonsense Syllables

Nonsense syllables chosen for learning material in experimental studies are generally selected on the basis of their associative value, on the assumption that frequency of association makes for ease of learning. That such an assumption is inadequate has been shown by Peixotto, who demonstrated that relative frequency of the component letters is at least as satisfactory a measure of recognitive value as is association.1 She also showed the important role played by positional factors in lists compiled for studies of recognition.2 In the first of her papers cited, she presents a list of 300 nonsense syllables, arranged according to recognitive value, noting at the same time that the values there assigned do not necessarily conform to their value in recall. It is the purpose of this paper to determine the relationship between recall and recognition for some of these syllables, in order to see whether Peixotto's values hold for both methods of testing memory. This problem is of some importance, for, despite the mass of experimental material which has been published in the field of learning, there is relatively little on a comparison of the methods of recognition and recall in the learning process. Procedure. It is obvious that, if learning is to be held constant, the same syllables cannot be used by the same Ss for studying both recall and recognition. Consequently, the method of equated groups was used; each group of Ss studied half the syllables by recognition and the other half by recall, and the syllables used by one group for recognition were used by the other group for recall.

Proactive inhibition in the recognition of nonsense syllables.

Proactive inhibition in the recognition of nonsense syllables.