Fifteen speech-language pathologists with extensive experience judging speakers' intelligibility and 15 control subjects with no such previous experience provided magnitude-estimation responses for two sets of nine audiotaped speech samples. These samples were three utterances composed of a group of 17 words that contained all the consonant phonemes of English. These words were arranged to form a set of either meaningful or nonsense utterances. Nine separate versions of both the meaningful and nonsense utterances were created by systematically increasing the number of phonemes produced incorrectly on each of the nine recordings. The analysis indicated no significant difference between the magnitude-estimation scaling responses of experienced and inexperienced listeners. A significant over-all difference was found for listeners' responses to meaningful versus nonsense utterances. The advantages of magnitude-estimation scaling as a measure of speakers' intelligibility are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AspC. W. (1981) Measurement of aural speech perception and oral speech production of the hearing impaired. In SinghS. (Ed.), Measurement procedures in speech, hearing, and language. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Pp. 191–218.
2.
BagleyW. C. (1900) The apperception of the spoken sentence: A study in the psychology of language. American Journal of Psychology, 12, 80–130
3.
BeukelmanD. R.YorkstonK. M. (1980) The influence of passage familiarity on intelligibility estimates of dysarthric speakers. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 33–41
CullinanW. L.BrownC. S.BlalockP. D. (1986) Ratings of the intelligibility of esophageal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 19, 185–195
6.
DoyleP.SwiftRHaafR. (1989) Effects of listener sophistication on judgments of tracheoesophageal talker intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 22, 105–113
7.
EakinsB. W. (1969) Research in slow-played speech: Listener training, consonant errors, and sex and age differences in speaker intelligibility. Central States Speech Journal, Winter, 302–307
8.
EganJ. P. (1948) Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope, 58, 955–991
9.
EpsteinA.GiolasT.OwensE. (1968) Familiarity and intelligibility of monosyllabic word lists. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 435–438
10.
FairbanksG. (1960) Voice and articulation drillbook. (2nd ed.) New York: Harper & Row.
11.
FarrimondT. (1962) Factors influencing the perception of pure tones and speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 194–204
12.
FucciD.EllisL.PetrosinoL. (1990) Speech clarity/intelligibility: Test-retest reliability of magnitude estimation scaling. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 232–234
13.
FudalaJ. (1970) Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale: Revised. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
14.
GarveyW. E. (1950) The intelligibility of abbreviated speech patterns. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 39, 296–306
15.
HellmanR.ZwislockiJ. (1963) Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps and interaural summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35, 856–865
16.
JergerJ.CarhartR.TilmanT.PetersonJ. (1959) Some relations between normal hearing for pure tones and for speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 2, 126–140
17.
LickliderJ.BindraD.PollackI. (1948) The intelligibility of rectangular squared waves. American Journal of Psychology, 61, 1–20
18.
ManaganK. (1961) Speech improvement through articulation testing. American Annals of the Deaf, 106, 391–396
19.
MarkidesA. (1983) The speech of hearing-impaired children. Oxford, Eng.: Manchester Univer. Press.
20.
McCroskeyR. L.MulliganM. (1963) The relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial larynx speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 28, 37–41
21.
McGarrN. S. (1983) The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 451–458
22.
MenckeE. O.OchsnerG. J.TestutE. W. (1983) Listener judges and the speech intelligibility of deaf children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 16, 176–180
23.
MetzD. E.SamarV. J.SchiavettiN.SitlerR. W.WhiteheadR. L. (1985) Acoustic dimensions of hearing impaired speakers' intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 345–355
24.
MillerG. A.HeiseG. A.LichtenW. (1951) The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 329–335
25.
MillerG. A.IsardS. (1963) Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 217–228
26.
MonsenR. B. (1978) Towards measuring how well hearing impaired children speak. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 197–219
27.
MoserH. M.DreherJ. J. (1955) Effects of training on listeners in intelligibility studies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 1213–1219
28.
OrrD. B.FriedmanH. L.WilliamsJ. C. (1965) Trainabiliry of listener comprehension of speeded discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 148–156
29.
OsbergerM. J.McGarrN. S. (1982) Speech production of the hearing impaired. In LassN. (Ed.), Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 268–277.
30.
SchiavettiN.MetzD. E.SitlerR. W. (1981) Construct validity of direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of speech intelligibility: Evidence from a study of the hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 441–445
31.
ShribergL. D.KwiatowskiJ. (1982) Phonological disorders: III. A procedure for assessing severity of involvement. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 256–270
32.
SmithC. R. (1975) Residual hearing and speech production in deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 795–811
33.
StevensJ. (1986) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
StuckeyC. W. (1963) Investigation of the precision of an articulation training program. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35, 1782–1787
35.
ThomasW. (1963) Intelligibility of the speech of deaf children. Proceedings of the International Congress on Education of the Deaf, Document No. 106.
36.
TiffanyW.BennettD. (1961) Intelligibility of slow played speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 4, 248–258
37.
VerschuureJ.BrocaarM. P. (1983) Intelligibility of interrupted meaningful and nonsense speech with and without intervening noise. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 232–240
38.
WarrenR.ObusekC.AckroffJ. M. (1972) Auditory induction: Perceptual synthesis of absent sounds. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 358–362
39.
WilliamsS. E.WatsonJ. B. (1985) Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomee groups. Archives of Otolaryngology, 111, 216–219
40.
WinerF. (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
