
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>doi: 10.1121/10.0013896
pmid: 36182275
Natural, conversational speech signals contain sources of symbolic and iconic information, both of which are necessary for the full understanding of speech. But speech intelligibility tests, which are generally derived from written language, present only symbolic information sources, including lexical semantics and syntactic structures. Speech intelligibility tests exclude almost all sources of information about talkers, including their communicative intentions and their cognitive states and processes. There is no reason to suspect that either hearing impairment or noise selectively affect perception of only symbolic information. We must therefore conclude that diagnosis of good or poor speech intelligibility on the basis of standard speech tests is based on measurement of only a fraction of the task of speech perception. This paper presents a descriptive comparison of information sources present in three widely used speech intelligibility tests and spontaneous, conversational speech elicited using a referential communication task. The aim of this comparison is to draw attention to the differences in not just the signals, but the tasks of listeners perceiving these different speech signals and to highlight the implications of these differences for the interpretation and generalizability of speech intelligibility test results.
Cognition, Speech Intelligibility, Speech Perception, Noise, Language
Cognition, Speech Intelligibility, Speech Perception, Noise, Language
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 12 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
