Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.35 1358-1362 December 1992.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Siegel, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Naeve, S. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Siegel, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Naeve, S. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Effects of Auditory and Visual Interference on Speech and Sign

Gerald M. Siegel 1
John L. Clay 1

Susan L. Naeve 1
1 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Hearing adults produced signed and spoken monologues under conditions of quiet or 80 dB SPL of noise and with their vision unobstructed or obstructed. Their signs were videotaped and a random sample of 24 frames was analyzed in each condition through a computer program that determined the overall distance of the hand from a marker placed on the signer's torso. Vocal intensity was digitized from the tape recordings and analyzed by computer for 1 min of continuous speech in each condition. The visual obstruction had no effect either on the distance of the signs or on the vocal intensity of their speech. The subjects increased vocal intensity by about 55% when the noise was introduced (the usual Lombard effect), but the noise had no effect on the distance of the signs. Sign performance was not influenced by visual feedback, and sign and speech were independent communication systems, even in bilingual speaking and signing subjects.

KEY WORDS: sign language, communication, Lombard effect, sign measurement

Submitted on January 13, 1992
Accepted on June 2, 1992


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?