A Comparison of Two Training Strategies for Speech Recognition with an Electrotactile Speech Processor Seven normally hearing adults were trained in the use of a multiple-channel electrotactile speech processor for 70 hours over a 6-month period. Two training strategies were used on each of the subjects: (1) analytic-plus-synthetic (AS), and (2) synthetic (S). The speech perception abilities of the subjects were assessed with closed ... Research Article
Research Article  |   March 01, 1990
A Comparison of Two Training Strategies for Speech Recognition with an Electrotactile Speech Processor
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Joseph I. Alcantara
    Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
  • R. S. C. Cowan
    Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
  • P. J. Blamey
    Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
  • G. M. Clark
    Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
  • Requests for reprints should be sent to Joseph I. Alcantara, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, The Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital, 32Gisbome Street, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002 Australia.
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   March 01, 1990
A Comparison of Two Training Strategies for Speech Recognition with an Electrotactile Speech Processor
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, March 1990, Vol. 33, 195-204. doi:10.1044/jshr.3301.195
History: Received March 8, 1989 , Accepted September 1, 1989
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, March 1990, Vol. 33, 195-204. doi:10.1044/jshr.3301.195
History: Received March 8, 1989; Accepted September 1, 1989

Seven normally hearing adults were trained in the use of a multiple-channel electrotactile speech processor for 70 hours over a 6-month period. Two training strategies were used on each of the subjects: (1) analytic-plus-synthetic (AS), and (2) synthetic (S). The speech perception abilities of the subjects were assessed with closed sets of vowels and consonants, open sets of words and sentences, and speech tracking, for the tactile-plus-lipreading, tactile, and lipreading conditions. The subjects were tested on three separate occasions: (1) at the beginning of the study, (2) after 35 hours of training, and (3) after a further 35 hours of training. Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-ranks (MPSR) tests showed that improvements observed with both the AS and S strategies were significantly (p < .05) greater than zero for most tests and conditions. The Wilcoxon MPSR test showed that the difference in improvements between the training strategies was significant for only the vowel and consonant tests in the tactile condition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. A. Blunden, Ms. I. Havriluk, Mr. R. Millard, and Dr. P. Seligman for their technical support and advice, and Ms. A. Brock for the management of subjects. The prototype versions of the electrotactile speech processor were developed with financial support from the Deafness Foundation of Victoria, The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the George Hicks Foundation. The present study was supported by a grant from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce of the Australian Commonwealth Government.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access