Page 43 - Spring 2019
P. 43

E a
z
(/1
in
3
course of maturation observed in behavioral speecli-recog- % 6
nition data and improvements in executive control (reviewed g
by Crone, 2009). ,-E 4
-§
Role of Linguietic Experience %
end Knowledge E 2
It has been suggested that the ability to use the information §
provided by the peripheral auditory system optimally re- 3_ 0
quires years of experience with sound, particularly exposure in 90 mo no 120 no
to spoken language (e.g., Tomblin and Moeller, 2015). In a Receptive Vocabulary Score (PPVT)
recent study, Lang et al. (2017) tested a group of5- to 6-year- F4 2 Re t_ '7 I d th h M: f t
old children and found a strong relationship between recep- igii”. .' . mp we Wm M my mini mi "5 U W Se". eme
t t 4 Ike k h 30 h Id
tive vocabulary and speech recognition when the masker was Zf;g)::ui:J gstidizj, Laangieiiiljii (e2i0a1i7e)_S $132625 07  25206:-1:
two-talker Sveech masken As shown in Figure 2, children tian between perfarmance an these twa measures (r = -0.75; P <
with larger vocabularies were more adept at recognizing sen- 0.001), indicating that children with larger vacalzalaries shawed bet-
tences presented in a background of two competing talkers W Weed‘ ’5C0g"m0" P9'If”"““"Ce i" the P"95e"C5 0f‘W‘7 5”'“Pe’i"é’
than children wnh more Invited Vocabulariei Resuhs from talkers than children with smaller Vacalmlaries. SNR. signal-ta-naise
. . . . . . . ratia;PPVT. Peabady Picture Vacabulary Test.
previous studies investigating the association between vo-
cabulary and speech recognition in a steady noise masker  
have been somewhat mixed (e'g“ Niitmiier et ai" 2013; Mo regation negatively impacts children’s speech recognition in a
Creery et al., 2017). The strong correlation observed Lang speech masken The Child/aduh difference in performance per_
ei 11' (2016) between Vocabiiiary and speech recognition in sisted, however providing evidence of developmental effects in
a tW°'ta]'ker mask“ may “fled ihe greaier Percepiiiai and the abili to reconstruct s eech based on s arse s eech cues
linguistic demands required to segregate and attend to target W P P P i
speech in a speech masker or to the spectrotemporally sparse |mp|icggi°n3
was available in dynamic 5PeeCh 1'“a5k91’5- The negative effects of environmental noise on childrens
A second line of evidence that immature language abili- lspeicii i:i-iiaiiiisfilai-iieiliiigiii ii? giasiioom are weii ii_oCiii‘iiei‘iiiet
1. t .b ‘ t h.1d , . d d.m 1 . . ea ing o e ev opmen o a c assroom acous ics s an ar
ics Con H ii 6 0 C 1 mm increase 1 Cu W refogmzmg by the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) that was first ap-
speech when a few people are talking at the same time comes _ _ _
. . , , . . proved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
from studies that have compared childrens and adults ability _ 2002 ANSI S12 60) Am] h th_ d b ‘ t
to recognize speecli based on. impoverished spectral and/or irds refsognize the negativeoeifgects idfaei-irivfiibnfnileiaiiiail fioaiisie
temporal information (eg., Eisenberg et al., 2000; Buss et al., _ _ , _
2017). For example, adults are able to recognize band-pass- ifii iiie cialssioolin on Ciiiidieiis speech iiiidsiaiai-idiiig’ iiie:
filtered speech based on a narrower bandwidth than children ociis exc iisive Y on iioise source? i-iieiiisiiiie ii-i iii-iocciipie
(e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2000; Mlot et al. 2010). One interpreta- Ciiissiooms (e_'_g" iieaiii-ig and viii-iiiiaiioi-i sysieiiis’ siieei iiiafa
tion for this age effect is that children require more informa- iici The addiiioiiai soiii-ids iypimiiy Piiesei-ii iii an occupied
. . . classroom, such as speech, are not accounted for. As argued
tion than adults in order to recognize speech because they _ _ _ _ _ _
. . . . by Brill et al. (2018) in an article in Acoustics Today, meeting
have less linguistic experience. _ _ _
the acoustics standards specified for unoccupied classrooms
This hypothesis was recently tested by assessing speech recog- might not be adequate for ensuring childrens speech under-
nition in a two-talker masker across a wide age range of chil- standing in occupied classrooms, in which multiple people
dren (5-16 years) and adults using speech that was digitally are often talking at the same time. This is problematic be-
processed using a technique designed to isolate the auditory cause, as anyone who has spent time in a classroom can at-
stream associated with the target speech (Buss et al., 2017). test, children spend most of their days listening and learning
Children and adults showed better performance after the sig- with competing speech in the background (e.g., Ambrose et
rial processing was applied, indicating that sound source seg- al., 2014; Brill et al., 2018).
Spring 2019 | Annuslzlcl Tnduy | 41









































   41   42   43   44   45