ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Note17 May 2018

Does Implicit Voice Learning Improve Spoken Language Processing? Implications for Clinical Practice

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0298

    Abstract

    Purpose

    In typical interactions with other speakers, including a clinical environment, listeners become familiar with voices through implicit learning. Previous studies have found evidence for a Familiar Talker Advantage (better speech perception and spoken language processing for familiar voices) following explicit voice learning. The current study examined whether a Familiar Talker Advantage would result from implicit voice learning.

    Method

    Thirty-three adults and 16 second graders were familiarized with 1 of 2 talkers' voices over 2 days through live interactions as 1 of 2 experimenters administered standardized tests and interacted with the listeners. To assess whether this implicit voice learning would generate a Familiar Talker Advantage, listeners completed a baseline sentence recognition task and a post-learning sentence recognition task with both the familiar talker and the unfamiliar talker.

    Results

    No significant effect of voice familiarity was found for either the children or the adults following implicit voice learning. Effect size estimates suggest that familiarity with the voice may benefit some listeners, despite the lack of an overall effect of familiarity.

    Discussion

    We discuss possible clinical implications of this finding and directions for future research.

    References

    • Allen, J. S., & Miller, J. L. (2004). Listener sensitivity to individual talker differences in voice-onset-time.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(6), 3171–3183.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1997). Omnibus survey results. Rockville, MD: Author.
      Google Scholar
    • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Benkı́, J. R. (2003). Quantitative evaluation of lexical status, word frequency, and neighborhood density as context effects in spoken word recognition.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(3), 1689–1705.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.23) [Computer program]. Retrieved from: http://www.praat.org
      Google Scholar
    • Ebert, K. D. (2017). Measuring clinician–client relationships in speech-language treatment for school-age children.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(1), 146–152.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Eisner, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 67(2), 224–238.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Felty, R. A. (2007). Context effects in spoken word recognition of English and German by native and non-native listeners. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1166–1183.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Hoffman, L. (2014). Prologue: Improving clinical practice from the inside out.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(2), 89–91.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Huyck, J. J., Smith, R. H., Hawkins, S., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2017). Generalization of perceptual learning of degraded speech across talkers.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(11), 3334–3341.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C § 1400 (2004).
      Google Scholar
    • Ireland, M., & Conrad, B. J. (2016). Evaluation and eligibility for speech-language services in schools.Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1(16), 78–90.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Kisilevsky, B. S., Hains, S. M., Lee, K., Xie, X., Huang, H., Ye, H. H., … Wang, Z. (2003). Effects of experience on fetal voice recognition.Psychological Science, 14(3), 220–224.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers.Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 1–15.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans.Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Levi, S. V. (2015). Talker familiarity and spoken word recognition in school-age children.Journal of Child Language, 42(4), 843–872.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Levi, S. V., Winters, S. J., & Pisoni, D. B. (2011). Effects of cross-language voice training on speech perception: Whose familiar voices are more intelligible?.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 4053–4062. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3651816
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (2006). Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon.Cognitive Science, 30(6), 1113–1126.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nelson, P., Kohnert, K., Sabur, S., & Shaw, D. (2005). Classroom noise and children learning through a second language: Double jeopardy?.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(3), 219–229.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • New York City Department of Education. (2009). Standard operating procedures manual: The referral, evaluation, and placement of school-age students with disabilities. New York, NY: Author.
      Google Scholar
    • New York City Early Intervention System. (2014). Policy and Procedure Manual. New York, NY: Author.
      Google Scholar
    • Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech.Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–238.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception.Perception & Psychophysics, 60(3), 355–376.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process.Psychological Science, 5(1), 42–46.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Peña, E. D., & Quinn, R. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and African American children.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28(4), 323–332.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/
      Google Scholar
    • Samuel, A. G., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Perceptual learning for speech.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1207–1218.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccoloto, A. (2007). E-Prime 2.0 Professional. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Software Tools, Inc.
      Google Scholar
    • Schroeder, M. (1968). Reference signal for signal quality studies.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44(6), 1735–1736.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Semel, E. M., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (2004). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool–Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
      Google Scholar
    • Smith, G. W., & Riccomini, P. J. (2013). The effect of a noise reducing test accommodation on elementary students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(2), 89–95.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Souza, P., Gehani, N., Wright, R., & McCloy, D. (2013). The advantage of knowing the talker.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24(8), 689–700.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Stelmachowicz, P. G., Hoover, B. M., Lewis, D. E., Kortekaas, R. W., & Pittman, A. L. (2000). The relation between stimulus context, speech audibility, and perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(4), 902–914.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Theodore, R. M., & Miller, J. L. (2010). Characteristics of listener sensitivity to talker-specific phonetic detail a.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(4), 2090–2099.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Theodore, R. M., Miller, J. L., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: Contextual influences a.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(6), 3974–3982.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Trude, A. M., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2012). Talker-specific perceptual adaptation during online speech perception.Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 979–1001.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Yonan, C. A., & Sommers, M. S. (2000). The effects of talker familiarity on spoken word identification in younger and older listeners.Psychology and Aging, 15(1), 88–99.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002). Preschool Language Scale–Fourth Edition (PLS-4). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources