JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.6 349-358 December 1963.
© 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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Giolas, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Epstein, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Giolas, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Epstein, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparative Intelligibility of Word Lists and Continuous Discourse

Thomas G. Giolas
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Aubrey Epstein
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

Intelligibility scores on Harvard Phonetically Balanced (PB-50) Word Lists, Central Institute for the Deaf (W-22) Monosyllabic Word Lists, and a sample of continuous discourse were compared. Speech samples were recorded on magnetic tape under seven high frequency filtering conditions. One-hundred and seventy-five normally hearing subjects were divided into seven groups, each group listening to all speech samples under one particular condition of filtering. Word lists were scored in terms of number of words correct and the continuous discourse in terms of items correct on a test covering information presented in the continuous discourse. The following results were obtained: (1) Consistently higher scores were achieved with the W-22 word lists than with the PB-50 word lists, even when the influence of dissimilar recordings was eliminated. Such differences were attributed to a combination of differences in list content and recording conditions. (2) Monosyllabic word lists and continuous discourse are affected in the same way by frequency distortion; that is, errors increase as distortion increases. (3) No accurate intelligibility score prediction for the continuous discourse could be made on the basis of scores obtained on the PB-50 and W-22 lists.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1963 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.