Speech Recognition in Noise in Adults and Children Who Speak English or Chinese as Their First Language

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Speech recognition of individuals who are listening to a nonnative language is significantly degraded in the presence of background noise and may be influenced by proficiency, age of acquisition, language experience, and daily use of the nonnative language.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to examine and compare speech recognition in noise performance across test conditions with varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) as well as the presence of vocal and spatial cues in listeners who speak American English as a native language or Mandarin Chinese as a native language. Self-rated English proficiency and experience were collected for native Mandarin Chinese speakers to determine its relationship to performance on the test measures.

Research Design:

A cross-sectional repeated measures design was used for the study.

Study Sample:

Four groups of participants were included in the study. The adult groups consisted of 25 adults who speak native English and 25 adults who speak native Mandarin Chinese with English as an additional language. The pediatric groups consisted of 16 children who speak native English and 16 children who speak native Mandarin Chinese with English as an additional language.

Data Collection and Analyses:

Percent correct speech recognition in noise was assessed at three SNRs (−3, 0, +3 dB) using the adult or pediatric versions of the AzBio sentence test. The Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentence (LiSN-S) test was used to determine the effect of providing spatial and vocal cues on the speech recognition in noise performance of the groups of participants. The data for each age group and test measure were analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance. Correlation analyses were performed to examine relationships between English proficiency and experience on performance across the speech recognition test conditions.

Results:

Analysis of the data from the adult or pediatric AzBio sentence test identified a significant effect of native language for adults but no significant effect for children. The higher SNRs yielded better performance for all listeners. On the LiSN-S test, results for the adult and pediatric groups were similar and showed significantly better performance for the native English speakers in every test condition. The demographic and language characteristics that most affected speech recognition performance across the test measures included the length of time the person lived in the United States, the age of English acquisition, the number of minutes per day English was spoken by the participant, and the self-rated English proficiency.

Conclusions:

The findings in this study highlight the importance and benefit of higher SNRs as well as the provision of vocal and spatial cues for improving speech recognition performance in noise of adult and pediatric listeners who speak Mandarin Chinese as a native language.

This project was supported by an American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Multicultural grant.

• REFERENCES

• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2017 Issues in ethics: cultural and linguistic competence. Position Statement. http://www.asha.org/Practice/ethics/Cultural-and-Linguistic-Competence/ . Accessed September 1, 2017.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arizona State University Board of Regents 2006. AzBio Sentence Test. Tempe, AZ: Auditory Potential, LLC;
  Google Scholar
• Bess FH, Dodd-Murphy J, Parker RA. 1998; Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear Hear 19 (05) 339-354
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boothroyd A. 2008; The performance/intensity function: an underused resource. Ear Hear 29 (04) 479-491
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cameron S, Dillon H, Newall P. 2006; The listening in spatialized noise test: an auditory processing disorder study. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (05) 306-320
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen J. 1988. The analysis of variance. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 273-406
  Google Scholar
• Cooke M, Garcia Lecumberri ML, Barker J. 2008; The foreign language cocktail party problem: energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am 123 (01) 414-427
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ. 1996; Speech perception in noise by children for whom English is a second language. Am J Audiol 5 (03) 47-51
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB. 2003; Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 113 (4 Pt 1): 2084-2094
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Festen JM, Plomp R. 1990; Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 88 (04) 1725-1736
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Finitzo-Hieber T, Tillman TW. 1978; Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res 21 (03) 440-458
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flege JE, MacKay IRA, Meador D. 1999; Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 106 (05) 2973-2987
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garcia Lecumberri ML, Cooke M. 2006; Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 119 (04) 2445-2454
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garcia Lecumberri ML, Cooke M, Cutler A. 2010; Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: a review. Speech Commun 52: 864-886
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. 2008; Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol 13 (03) 193-205
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. 1977; Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 61 (05) 1337-1351
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. 2002; Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. Am J Audiol 11 (02) 65-71
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lecumberri M, Cooke M, Cutler A. 2010; Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: a review. Speech Commun 52 11–12 864-886
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• McCreery R, Ito R, Spratford M, Lewis D, Hoover B, Stelmachowicz PG. 2010; Performance-intensity functions for normal-hearing adults and children using computer-aided speech perception assessment. Ear Hear 31: 95-101
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nakamura K, Gordon-Salant S. 2011; Speech perception in quiet and noise using the hearing in noise test and the Japanese hearing in noise test by Japanese listeners. Ear Hear 32 (01) 121-131
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Acoustic Laboratories 2011. Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test, LISN-S Software. Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak;
  Google Scholar
• Nelson EL, Smaldino J, Erler S, Garstecki D. 2007; Background noise levels and reverberation times in old and new elementary school classrooms. J Educ Audiol 14: 16-22
  Google Scholar
• Nelson P, Kohnert K, Sabur S, Shaw D. 2005; Classroom noise and children learning through a second language: double jeopardy?. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 36 (03) 219-229
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neuman AC, Wroblewski M, Hajicek J, Rubinstein A. 2010; Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults. Ear Hear 31 (03) 336-344
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson MJ, Soli SD, Gelnett DJ. 1996. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for Children (HINT-C). House Ear Institute;
  Google Scholar
• Nishi K, Trevino AC, Rosado Rogers L, García P, Neely ST. 2017; Effects of simulated hearing loss on bilingual children's consonant recognition in noise. Ear Hear 38 (05) e292-e304
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piske T, MacKay IRA, Flege JE. 2001; Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: a review. J Phonetics 29 (02) 191-215
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Rimikis S, Smiljanic R, Calandruccio L. 2013; Nonnative English speaker performance on the Basic English Lexicon (BEL) sentences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (03) 792-804
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schafer EC, Anderson C, Sullivan J, Wolfe J, Duke M, Osman H, Wright S, Dyson J, Bryant D, Pitts K. 2016; Children’s auditory recognition of digital stimuli. J Educ Ped Rehab Audiol 22: 1-11
  Google Scholar
• Schafer EC, Beeler S, Ramos H, Morais M, Monzingo J, Algier K. 2012; Developmental effects and spatial hearing in young children with normal-hearing sensitivity. Ear Hear 33 (06) e32-e43
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schafer EC, Pogue J, Milrany T. 2012; List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (07) 501-509
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi LF, Sánchez D. 2010; Spanish/English bilingual listeners on clinical word recognition tests: what to expect and how to predict. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53 (05) 1096-1110
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spahr AJ, Dorman MF. 2004; Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130 (05) 624-628
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Cook SJ, Loiselle LM, DeJong MD, Hedley-Williams A, Sunderhaus LS, Hayes CA, Gifford RH. 2014; Development and validation of the pediatric AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 35 (04) 418-422
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S. 2012; Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 33 (01) 112-117
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. 2014; Non-native listeners’ recognition of high-variability speech using PRESTO. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (09) 869-892
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau 2011 Language use in the United States: 2011 [American Community Survey Reports]. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs-12.pdf . Accessed September 1, 2017
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vermeire K, Knoop A, Boel C, Auwers S, Schenus L, Talaveron-Rodriguez M, De Boom C, De Sloovere M. 2016; Speech recognition in noise by younger and older adults: effects of age, hearing loss, and temporal resolution. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 125 (04) 297-302
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wróblewski M, Lewis DE, Valente DL, Stelmachowicz PG. 2012; Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults. Ear Hear 33 (06) 731-744
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang L, Li Y, Wu H, Shu H, Zhang Y, Li P. 2016; Effects of semantic context and fundamental frequency contours on Mandarin speech recognition by second language learners. Front Psychol 7: 908
  PubMedGoogle Scholar