title: SEPARATING THE EFFECTS OF ACOUSTIC AND PHONETIC FACTORS IN LINGUISTIC PROCESSING WITH IMPOVERISHED SIGNALS BY ADULTS AND CHILDREN.
abstract: Cochlear implants allow many individuals with profound hearing loss to understand spoken language, even though the impoverished signals provided by these devices poorly preserve acoustic attributes long believed to support recovery of phonetic structure. Consequently questions may be raised regarding whether traditional psycholinguistic theories rely too heavily on phonetic segments to explain linguistic processing while ignoring potential roles of other forms of acoustic structure. This study tested that possibility. Adults and children (8 years old) performed two tasks: one involving explicit segmentation, phonemic awareness, and one involving a linguistic task thought to operate more efficiently with well-defined phonetic segments, short-term memory. Stimuli were unprocessed signals (UP), amplitude envelopes (AE) analogous to implant signals, and unprocessed signals in noise (NOI) which provided a degraded signal for comparison. Adults' results for short-term recall were similar for UP and NOI, but worse for AE stimuli. The phonemic awareness task revealed the opposite pattern across AE and NOI. Children's results for short-term recall showed similar decrements in performance for AE and NOI compared to UP, even though only NOI stimuli showed diminished results for segmentation. Conclusions were that perhaps traditional accounts are too focused on phonetic segments, something implant designers and clinicians need to consider.
authors.affiliation: The Ohio State University.
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Nittrouer
authors.affiliation: The Ohio State University.
authors.forename: Joanna H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Lowenstein
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Oct;106(4 Pt 1):2097-103
references.pmid: 10530032
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1987 Sep;30(3):319-29
references.pmid: 3669639
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1976 Mar;4(2):128-31
references.pmid: 21287012
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Jun;87(6):2705-15
references.pmid: 2373804
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2004 Apr;25(2):173-85
references.pmid: 15064662
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Mar;127(3):1624-35
references.pmid: 20329861
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Dec;114(6 Pt 1):3024-7
references.pmid: 14714781
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Aug;112(2):711-9
references.pmid: 12186050
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Aug;35(4):1245-53
references.pmid: 19653762
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1991 May;109(3):490-501
references.pmid: 2062981
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Apr;101(4):2253-66
references.pmid: 9104027
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999 Aug;42(4):925-42
references.pmid: 10450912
references.citation: Science. 1995 Oct 13;270(5234):303-4
references.pmid: 7569981
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1990 Mar;33(1):16-27
references.pmid: 2314075
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2008;169:323-38
references.pmid: 18394484
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1980 Feb;6(1):110-25
references.pmid: 6444985
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2011 Apr;108(4):762-85
references.pmid: 21109251
references.citation: J Learn Disabil. 1984 Dec;17(10):592-9
references.pmid: 6512404
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1988 Jul;84(1):101-14
references.pmid: 3411038
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1986 Oct;12(4):517-24
references.pmid: 2945898
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1986 Jan;18(1):1-86
references.pmid: 3753912
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 1964 Nov;55:429-32
references.pmid: 14237884
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Nov 1;4(11):417-423
references.pmid: 11058819
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1990 Apr;47(4):379-90
references.pmid: 2345691
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Mar 7;416(6876):87-90
references.pmid: 11882898
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 May;107(5 Pt 1):2704-10
references.pmid: 10830392
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Nov;59(3):203-43
references.pmid: 19423089
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1967 Nov;74(6):431-61
references.pmid: 4170865
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2004 Aug;25(4):375-87
references.pmid: 15292777
references.citation: Ear Hear. 1998 Feb;19(1):1-36
references.pmid: 9504270
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996 Sep;22(5):1166-83
references.pmid: 8926483
references.citation: Int Congr Ser. 2001 Nov 1;1273:304-307
references.pmid: 21442032
references.citation: Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009 Oct;18(5):275-279
references.pmid: 20725604
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1966 Nov;18(4):362-5
references.pmid: 5956080
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Mar;19(2):309-28
references.pmid: 8454963
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 5;103(49):18866-9
references.pmid: 17116863
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1980 Feb;32(1):85-99
references.pmid: 7367580
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Aug;54(4):1182-96
references.pmid: 21173394
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1978 Nov;6(6):583-9
references.pmid: 723617
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1980 Sep;68(3):836-42
references.pmid: 7419819
references.citation: Lang Speech. 1984 Oct-Dec;27 ( Pt 4):367-79
references.pmid: 6536845
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Jul;102(1):572-80
references.pmid: 9228818
references.citation: J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007 Feb;48(2):139-46
references.pmid: 17300552
references.citation: J Child Lang. 1980 Oct;7(3):459-68
references.pmid: 7440672
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1978 Dec;21(4):682-701
references.pmid: 745369