Enhancing Speech Discrimination Through Stimulus Repetition PurposeTo evaluate the effects of sequential and alternating repetition on speech-sound discrimination.MethodTypically hearing adults' discrimination of 3 pairs of speech-sound contrasts was assessed at 3 signal-to-noise ratios using the change/no-change procedure. On change trials, the standard and comparison stimuli differ; on no-change trials, they are identical. Listeners were presented with ... Article
Article  |   October 01, 2011
Enhancing Speech Discrimination Through Stimulus Repetition
 
Author Notes
  • Correspondence to Rachael Frush Holt: raholt@indiana.edu
  • Editor: Robert Schlauch
    Editor: Robert Schlauch×
  • Associate Editor: Kathryn Arehart
    Associate Editor: Kathryn Arehart×
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Hearing
Article   |   October 01, 2011
Enhancing Speech Discrimination Through Stimulus Repetition
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2011, Vol. 54, 1431-1447. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/09-0242)
History: Received November 9, 2009 , Revised September 29, 2010 , Accepted February 25, 2011
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2011, Vol. 54, 1431-1447. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/09-0242)
History: Received November 9, 2009; Revised September 29, 2010; Accepted February 25, 2011
Web of Science® Times Cited: 6

PurposeTo evaluate the effects of sequential and alternating repetition on speech-sound discrimination.

MethodTypically hearing adults' discrimination of 3 pairs of speech-sound contrasts was assessed at 3 signal-to-noise ratios using the change/no-change procedure. On change trials, the standard and comparison stimuli differ; on no-change trials, they are identical. Listeners were presented with 5 repetition conditions: 2 and 4 sequential repetitions of the standard followed by sequential repetitions of the comparison; 2 and 4 alternating presentations of the standard and comparison; and 1 repetition of the standard and comparison.

ResultsBoth sequential and alternating repetition improved discrimination of the fricative and liquid contrasts, but neither was clearly superior to the other across the conditions.

ConclusionsThe results support previous findings that increasing the number of fricative and liquid stimulus presentations improves discriminability and extends the findings to natural speech stimuli. Further, the effect of repetition is robust: Both sequential and alternating repetitions improve speech-sound discrimination, and few differences emerge between the two types of stimulus repetitions. The results have implications for evaluating the strength of the internal representation of speech stimuli in clinical populations believed to have a core deficit in phonological encoding, such as children with hearing loss.

Acknowledgments
The contributions of Kaylah Lalonde, Patricia Ray, Katherine Russell, Spencer Smith, and Aileen Wong in data collection were particularly valuable, as were the comments of Jennifer Lentz and David Pisoni on previous versions of this article. Portions of this work were presented at the November 2008 convention of the American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access