Prosody and Intelligibility of Speech in Children with Cochlear Implants

1. Prosody and Intelligibility of Speech in Children with Cochlear Implants Elisabeth E. Anderson, M.S. & Peter Flipsen Jr., Ph.D.Idaho State University ASHA Convention, 2011 San Diego, CA • RESULTS • Prosody and Intelligibility • Only two of the PVSP variables were significantly correlated with intelligibility (loudness= 0.54; phrasing= -0.51). • DISCUSSION • Findings for the PVSP variables are similar to those of Lenden and Flipsen (2007). • Resonance quality remains an area of concern for children with cochlear implants, but findings for use of Stress indicated better performance than observed in the Lenden and Flipsen study. • Findings for intelligibility are consistent with other studies of this population (e.g., Flipsen & Colvard, 2006; Peng, Spencer, & Tomblin, 2004). • INTRODUCTION • The relationship between prosody and intelligibility of conversational speech was examined in children with cochlear implants. • Prosody and intelligibility are known areas of concern for children with severe and profound hearing loss and possibly with children with cochlear implants (Flipsen & Colvard, 2006; Lenden & Flipsen, 2007). • METHOD • Participants • Included 16 children (13 females; 3 males) who had been fitted with cochlear implants between 1;2 and 8;4 (Mn = 3;9). • Had 12-94 months of implant experience at time of testing (Mn = 53 months) . • Sampling Task • A single trained examiner engaged the children in casual conversation about everyday topics. • Analysis • Samples were transcribed using narrow phonetic transcription (Shriberg & Kent, 2003) and the transcripts were analyzed using Programs to Evaluate Phonetic and Phonologic Evaluation Records (PEPPER; Shriberg et al., 2001). • METHOD (cont’d) • Transcripts were then also analyzed by the first author using the Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP; Shriberg, Kwiatkowski & Rasmussen, 1990). • RESULTS • Overall Findings • Findings for the individual variables are shown in Table 1. • Temporal Trends • Each of the variables was then examined for trends relative to time by correlating them with age of implantation, age at testing, and amount of implant experience. • Small sample sizes dictated the use of Spearman rank-order correlations (p < .05). See Table 2. • DISCUSSION (cont’d) • Correlation of intelligibility and implant experience is consistent with previous research (e.g., Flipsen & Colvard, 2006) and likely relates to increased auditory exposure to their own speech and speech models of others. • Correlation between appropriate use of pitch and implant experience was not seen in Lenden and Flipsen (2007). • Current study included a wider range of both implantation ages and implant experience. • Appropriate use of rate was correlated with age at testing. This is consistent with earlier studies of rate in general which point to improvements in both motor skill and cognitive skill (which both affect rate) with age. • Table 2 indicates that as age of implantation goes up, appropriate use of phrasing goes up. Counterintuitive? • Phrasing was also negatively correlated with number of different words. Additional new words may have stressed the children’s processing capacity. • DISCUSSION (cont’d) • Loudness was significantly correlated with intelligibility. Louder output would likely improve understanding of the message. • Phrasing was negatively correlated with intelligibility (unexpectedly). But intelligibility was negatively correlated with number of different words. The children might be trading off phrasing and new words in attempting to make themselves more intelligible. • REFERENCES • Flipsen, P., Jr., & Colvard, L. G. (2006). Intelligibility of conversational speech produced by children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(2), 93-108. • Lenden, J. M., & Flipsen, P., Jr. (2007). Prosody and voice characteristics of children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40(1), 66-81. • Peng, S., Spencer, L. J., & Tomblin, J. B. (2004). Speech intelligibility of pediatric cochlear implant recipients with 7 years of device experience. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1227-1236. • Shriberg, L. D., Allen, C. T., McSweeny, J. L., & Wilson, D. L. (2001). PEPPER: Programs to examine phonetic and phonologic evaluation records [Computer Program]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. • Shriberg, L. D., & Kent, R. D. (2003). Clinical Phonetics (Third Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. • Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J. & Rasmussen, C. (1990). Prosody-voice screening profile (PVSP).Tuscon, AZ: Communication Skill Builders. Table 2. Correlations * between study variables and time * Spearman rank-order type; ns = not significant Table 1. Overall findings for study variables Acknowledgments Many thanks to Julie Beeler, Velvet Buehler, Molly Erickson, Mark Hedrick, Marge Hudson, Kim Jenkins, Leslie Jolles, and Saneta Thurman for their assistance with this study. Special thanks to Rhonda Parker for participant testing and Joel Blaiss for phonetic transcription. Many thanks also to the children and their parents who participated.