1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 9, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Studies on the speech and language development of hearing-impaired children often focus on (deviations in) the children’s speech . However, it is unclear if listeners also differences between the speech of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children. This contribution wants to fill this void by investigating the overall perceived speech quality of both groups. Three groups of listeners (speech and language pathologists, primary school teachers and inexperienced listeners) judged 126 utterances of seven normally hearing children, seven children with an acoustic hearing aid and seven children with a cochlear implant, in a comparative judgment task. All children were approximately seven years old and received, in the case of the hearing-impaired children, their assistive hearing device before the age of two.

The online tool D-PAC was used to administer the comparative judgement task. The listeners compared stimuli in pairs and decided which stimulus sounded best. This method ultimately leads to a ranking in which all stimuli are represented according to their overall perceived speech quality.

The main result is that the speech of normally hearing children was preferred by the listeners. This indicates that, even after several years of device use, the speech quality of hearing-impaired children is perceived as different from that of normally hearing children. Within the group of hearing-impaired children, cochlear implanted children were judged to exhibit higher speech quality than acoustically hearing aided children, especially after a longer device use. The speech quality of the latter group, on the other hand, remained practically stable. Listeners, irrespectively of their degree of experience with (hearing-impaired) children’s speech, completed the task similarly. In other words: the difference between the overall perceived speech quality of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children is salient for all listener groups and they all slightly preferred children with a cochlear implant over children with an acoustic hearing aid.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo
2019-10-24
2025-03-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/dujal.18017.boo.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andrich, D.
    (1982) An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR-20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern. Education Research and Perspectives, 9(1), 95–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baudonck, N., Van Lierde, K., D’Haeseleer, E., & Dhooge, I.
    (2015) Nasalance and nasality in children with cochlear implants and children with hearing aids. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 79(4), 541–545. 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.01.025
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.01.025 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boonen, N., Kloots, H., Verhoeven, J., & Gillis, S.
    (2019) Can listeners hear the difference between children with normal hearing and children with a hearing impairment?Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(4), 316-333. 10.1080/02699206.2018.1513564
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2018.1513564 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bramley, T.
    (2007) Paired comparison methods. InP. Newton, J.-A. Baird, H. Goldstein, H. Patrick, & P. Tymms (Eds.), Techniques for monitoring the comparability of examination standards (pp.246–294). London: QCA.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2015) Investigating the reliability of Adaptive Comparative Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment Research Report.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chin, S. B., & Kuhns, M. J.
    (2014) Proximate factors associated with speech intelligibility in children with cochlear implants: A preliminary study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 28(7–8), 532–542. 10.3109/02699206.2014.926997
     https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014.926997 [Google Scholar]
  8. Crystal, D.
    (2003) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ertmer, D. J.
    (2007) Speech intelligibility in young cochlear implant recipients: Gains during year three. The Volta Review, 107(2), 85–99. 10.17955/tvr.107.2.585
     https://doi.org/10.17955/tvr.107.2.585 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fang, H.-Y., Ko, H.-C., Wang, N.-M., Fang, T.-J., Chao, W.-C., Tsou, Y.-T., & Wu, C.-M.
    (2014) Auditory performance and speech intelligibility of Mandarin-speaking children implanted before age 5. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 78(5), 799–803. 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.02.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.02.014 [Google Scholar]
  11. Flipsen, P., & Colvard, L. G.
    (2006) Intelligibility of conversational speech produced by children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(2), 93–108. 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2005.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2005.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gillis, S.
    (2017) Speech and language in congenitally deaf children with a cochlear implant. InA. Bar-On, & D. Ravid (Eds.), Handbook of communication disorders: Theoretical, empirical, and applied linguistic perspectives (pp.763–790). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hide, Ø.
    (2013) Acoustic features of speech by young cochlear implant users. A comparison with normal-hearing and hearing-aided age mates. Ongepubliceerd proefschrift, Universiteit Antwerpen.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kral, A., & O’Donoghue, G.
    (2010) Profound deafness in childhood. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(15), 1438–1450. 10.1056/NEJMra0911225
     https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0911225 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kral, A., & Sharma, A.
    (2012) Developmental neuroplasticity after cochlear implantation. Trends in Neurosciences, 35(2), 111–122. 10.1016/j.tins.2011.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2011.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Laming, D.
    (2004) Human judgment: The eye of the beholder. Hongkong: Thomson Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lesterhuis, M., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Van Daal, T., Van Gasse, R., Coertjens, L., Verhavert, S., Mortier, A., Coenen, T., Vlerick, P., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P.
    (2015) Competenties kwaliteitvol beoordelen: brengt een comparatieve aanpak soelaas?Tijdschrift voor hoger onderwijs, 33(2), 55–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lesterhuis, M., Verhavert, S., Coertjens, L., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S.
    (2017) Comparative judgment as a promising alternative to score competences. InE. Cano, & G. Ion (Eds.), Innovative practices for higher education assessment and measurement (pp.119–138). Hershey: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑5225‑0531‑0.ch007
     https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0531-0.ch007 [Google Scholar]
  19. McGarr, N.
    (1983) The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26(3), 451–458. 10.1044/jshr.2603.451
     https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2603.451 [Google Scholar]
  20. Miller, N.
    (2013) Measuring up to speech intelligibility. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(6), 601–612. 10.1111/1460‑6984.12061
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12061 [Google Scholar]
  21. Munson, B., Johnson, J. M., & Edwards, J.
    (2012) The role of experience in the perception of phonetic detail in children’s speech: A comparison between speech-language pathologists and clinically untrained listeners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 124–139. 10.1044/1058‑0360(2011/11‑0009)
     https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2011/11-0009) [Google Scholar]
  22. Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E.
    (2007) Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 1048–1062. 10.1044/1092‑4388(2007/073)
     https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/073) [Google Scholar]
  23. Pollitt, A.
    (2012) Comparative judgement for assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 157–170. 10.1007/s10798‑011‑9189‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9189-x [Google Scholar]
  24. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienne, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing. [www.R-project.org/]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Schiavetti, N.
    (1992) Scaling procedures for the measurement of speech intelligibility. InR. D. Kent (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders: Theory, measurement and management (pp.11–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/sspcl.1.02sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sspcl.1.02sch [Google Scholar]
  26. Thurstone, L.
    (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286. Herdrukt in Psychological Review 1994, 101(2), 266–270. 10.1037/h0070288
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288 [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Lierde, K. M., Vinck, B. M., Baudonck, N., De Vel, E., & Dhooge, I.
    (2005) Comparison of the overall intelligibility, articulation, resonance, and voice characteristics between children using cochlear implants and those using bilateral hearing aids: A pilot study. International Journal of Audiology, 44(8), 452–465. 10.1080/14992020500189146
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020500189146 [Google Scholar]
  28. Vanormelingen, L., De Maeyer, S., & Gillis, S.
    (2016) A comparison of maternal and child language in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(2), 145–179. 10.1075/lia.7.2.01van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.7.2.01van [Google Scholar]
  29. Verhoeven, J., Hide, Ø., De Maeyer, S., Gillis, S., & Gillis, S.
    (2016) Hearing impairment and vowel production. A comparison between normally hearing, hearing-aided and cochlear implanted Dutch children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 59, 24–39. 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.10.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Whitehouse, C., & Pollitt, A.
    (2012) Using Adaptive Comparative Judgement to obtain a highly reliable rank order in summative assessment. Gedownload viahttps://cerp.aqa.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_upload/CERP_RP_CW_20062012_2.pdf [07.02.2019]. Manchester: Centre for Education Research and Policy.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo
Loading
Identificeerbaarheid van kinderen met een gehoorbeperking
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 9, 1 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.18017.boo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): akoestisch hoorapparaat; cochleair implantaat; comparatieve beoordeling; spraakperceptie; taalverwerving

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error