|
|
||||||||
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boston University, Boston, MA, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boston University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boston University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT
University of Washington, Seattle, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston University
Contact author: Harlan Lane, Speech Communication Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge MA 02139. E-mail: harlan{at}speech.mit.edu.
Purpose: To describe cochlear implant users' phoneme labeling, discrimination, and prototypes for a vowel and a sibilant contrast, and to assess the effects of 1 year's experience with prosthetic hearing.
Method: Based on naturally produced clear examples of "boot," "beet," "said," and "shed" by 1 male and 1 female speaker, continua with 13 stimuli were synthesized for each contrast. Seven hearing controls labeled those stimuli and assigned them goodness ratings, as did 7 implant users at 1-month postimplant. One year later, these measures were repeated, and within category discrimination, d', was assessed.
Results: Compared with controls, implant users' vowel and sibilant labeling slopes were substantially shallower but improved over 1 year of prosthesis use. Their sensitivity to phonetic differences within phoneme categories was about half that of controls. The slopes of their goodness rating functions were shallower and did not improve. Their prototypes for the sibilant contrast (but not the vowels) were closer to one another and did not improve by moving apart.
Conclusions: Implant users' phoneme labeling and within-category perceptual structure were anomalous at 1-month postimplant. After 1 year of prosthesis use, phoneme labeling categories had sharpened but within category discrimination was well below that of hearing controls.
KEY WORDS: speech perception, cochlear implants, hearing loss
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter What's this?
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASHA Journals | AJA | AJSLP | JSLHR | LSHSS |