» Articles » PMID: 23469266

Perceptual Learning of Interrupted Speech

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2013 Mar 8
PMID 23469266
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The intelligibility of periodically interrupted speech improves once the silent gaps are filled with noise bursts. This improvement has been attributed to phonemic restoration, a top-down repair mechanism that helps intelligibility of degraded speech in daily life. Two hypotheses were investigated using perceptual learning of interrupted speech. If different cognitive processes played a role in restoring interrupted speech with and without filler noise, the two forms of speech would be learned at different rates and with different perceived mental effort. If the restoration benefit were an artificial outcome of using the ecologically invalid stimulus of speech with silent gaps, this benefit would diminish with training. Two groups of normal-hearing listeners were trained, one with interrupted sentences with the filler noise, and the other without. Feedback was provided with the auditory playback of the unprocessed and processed sentences, as well as the visual display of the sentence text. Training increased the overall performance significantly, however restoration benefit did not diminish. The increase in intelligibility and the decrease in perceived mental effort were relatively similar between the groups, implying similar cognitive mechanisms for the restoration of the two types of interruptions. Training effects were generalizable, as both groups improved their performance also with the other form of speech than that they were trained with, and retainable. Due to null results and relatively small number of participants (10 per group), further research is needed to more confidently draw conclusions. Nevertheless, training with interrupted speech seems to be effective, stimulating participants to more actively and efficiently use the top-down restoration. This finding further implies the potential of this training approach as a rehabilitative tool for hearing-impaired/elderly populations.

Citing Articles

Rapid but specific perceptual learning partially explains individual differences in the recognition of challenging speech.

Banai K, Karawani H, Lavie L, Lavner Y Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):10011.

PMID: 35705680 PMC: 9200863. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-14189-8.


Auditory processing in children: Role of working memory and lexical ability in auditory closure.

Nagaraj N, Magimairaj B PLoS One. 2020; 15(11):e0240534.

PMID: 33147602 PMC: 7641369. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240534.


Effects of auditory training on low-pass filtered speech perception and listening-related cognitive load.

Wisniewski M, Zakrzewski A J Acoust Soc Am. 2020; 148(4):EL394.

PMID: 33138495 PMC: 7599074. DOI: 10.1121/10.0001742.


Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.

Pals C, Sarampalis A, van Dijk M, Baskent D Ear Hear. 2018; 40(1):3-17.

PMID: 29757801 PMC: 6319586. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000587.


Temporal integration windows for naturalistic visual sequences.

Fairhall S, Albi A, Melcher D PLoS One. 2014; 9(7):e102248.

PMID: 25010517 PMC: 4092072. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102248.


References
1.
Sivonen P, Maess B, Lattner S, Friederici A . Phonemic restoration in a sentence context: evidence from early and late ERP effects. Brain Res. 2006; 1121(1):177-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.123. View

2.
Francis A, Baldwin K, Nusbaum H . Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues. Percept Psychophys. 2001; 62(8):1668-80. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212164. View

3.
Magnuson J, Tanenhaus M, Aslin R, Dahan D . The time course of spoken word learning and recognition: studies with artificial lexicons. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003; 132(2):202-27. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.202. View

4.
Seitz A, Protopapas A, Tsushima Y, Vlahou E, Gori S, Grossberg S . Unattended exposure to components of speech sounds yields same benefits as explicit auditory training. Cognition. 2010; 115(3):435-43. PMC: 2866797. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.004. View

5.
Gnansia D, Pressnitzer D, Pean V, Meyer B, Lorenzi C . Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees. Hear Res. 2010; 265(1-2):46-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.02.012. View