The Parsing Syllable Envelopes Test for Assessment of Amplitude Modulation Discrimination Skills in Children: Development, Normative Data, and Test–Retest Reliability Studies

Abstract

Background:

Intensity peaks and valleys in the acoustic signal are salient cues to syllable structure, which is accepted to be a crucial early step in phonological processing. As such, the ability to detect low-rate (envelope) modulations in signal amplitude is essential to parse an incoming speech signal into smaller phonological units.

Purpose:

The Parsing Syllable Envelopes (ParSE) test was developed to quantify the ability of children to recognize syllable boundaries using an amplitude modulation detection paradigm. The envelope of a 750-msec steady-state /a/ vowel is modulated into two or three pseudo-syllables using notches with modulation depths varying between 0% and 100% along an 11-step continuum. In an adaptive three-alternative forced-choice procedure, the participant identified whether one, two, or three pseudo-syllables were heard.

Research Design:

Development of the ParSE stimuli and test protocols, and collection of normative and test–retest reliability data.

Study Sample:

Eleven adults (aged 23 yr 10 mo to 50 yr 9 mo, mean 32 yr 10 mo) and 134 typically developing, primary-school children (aged 6 yr 0 mo to 12 yr 4 mo, mean 9 yr 3 mo). There were 73 males and 72 females.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Data were collected using a touchscreen computer. Psychometric functions (PFs) were automatically fit to individual data by the ParSE software. Performance was related to the modulation depth at which syllables can be detected with 88% accuracy (referred to as the upper boundary of the uncertainty region [UBUR]). A shallower PF slope reflected a greater level of uncertainty. Age effects were determined based on raw scores. z Scores were calculated to account for the effect of age on performance. Outliers, and individual data for which the confidence interval of the UBUR exceeded a maximum allowable value, were removed. Nonparametric tests were used as the data were skewed toward negative performance.

Results:

Across participants, the performance criterion (UBUR) was met with a median modulation depth of 42%. The effect of age on the UBUR was significant (p < 0.00001). The UBUR ranged from 50% modulation depth for 6-yr-olds to 25% for adults. Children aged 6–10 had significantly higher uncertainty region boundaries than adults. A skewed distribution toward negative performance occurred (p = 0.00007). There was no significant difference in performance on the ParSE between males and females (p = 0.60). Test–retest z scores were strongly correlated (r = 0.68, p < 0.0000001).

Conclusions:

The ParSE normative data show that the ability to identify syllable boundaries based on changes in amplitude modulation improves with age, and that some children in the general population have performance much worse than their age peers. The test is suitable for use in planned studies in a clinical population.

Key Words

amplitude modulation - central auditory processing disorder - dyslexia - speech envelope

This research is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Health.

Portions of this research were presented at the Audiology Australia National Conference, Melbourne, Australia, May 20, 2016.

• REFERENCES

• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2005 (Central) Auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. www.asha.org/policy
• Bellis TJ. 2003. Assessment and Management of Central Auditory Processing Disorders in the Educational Setting. From Science to Practice. New York, NY: Delmar Learning;
• Bertoncini J, Mehler J. 1981; Syllables as units in infant speech perception. Infant Behav Dev 4 (01) 247-260
• Blomert L, Mitterer H. 2004; The fragile nature of the speech-perception deficit in dyslexia: natural vs synthetic speech. Brain Lang 89 (01) 21-26
• Boersma P, Weenink D. 2014. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 5.4.04). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam [Computer software];
• Buss E, Hall 3rd JW, Porter H, Grose JH. 2014; Gap detection in school-age children and adults: effects of inherent envelope modulation and the availability of cues across frequency. J Speech Lang Hear Res 57 (03) 1098-1107
• Cameron S, Chong-White N, Mealings K, Beechey T, Dillon H, Young T. 2018; The Phoneme Identification Test for assessment of spectral and temporal discrimination skills in children: development, normative data, and test–retest reliability studies. J Am Acad Audiol 29 (02) 135-150
• Cameron S, Dillon H. 2014. Remediation of spatial processing issues in CAPD. In: Chermak G, Musiek F. Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder. Comprehensive Intervention. Vol. II. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 201-224
• Crystal TH, House AS. 1990; Articulation rate and the duration of syllables and stress groups in connected speech. J Acoust Soc Am 88 (01) 101-112
• Dillon H, Cameron S, Glyde H, Wilson W, Tomlin D. 2012; An opinion on the assessment of people who may have an auditory processing disorder. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (02) 97-105
• Dimitrijevic A, Alsamri J, John MS, Purcell D, George S, Zeng F-G. 2016; Human envelope following responses to amplitude modulation: effects of aging and modulation depth. Ear Hear 37 (05) e322-e335
• Drullman R, Festen JM, Plomp R. 1994; Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1053-1064
• Fant G. 1962. Formant Bandwidth Data. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology; 1-2
• Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1993; Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 36 (06) 1276-1285
• Goswami U. 2003; Why theories about developmental dyslexia require developmental designs. Trends Cogn Sci 7 (12) 534-540
• Goswami U. 2011; A temporal sampling framework for developmental dyslexia. Trends Cogn Sci 15 (01) 3-10
• Goswami U, Fosker T, Huss M, Mead N, Szucs D. 2011; Rise time and formant transition duration in the discrimination of speech sounds: the Ba-Wa distinction in developmental dyslexia. Dev Sci 14 (01) 34-43
• Goswami U, Thomson J, Richardson U, Stainthorp R, Hughes D, Rosen S, Scott SK. 2002; Amplitude envelope onsets and developmental dyslexia: a new hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99 (16) 10911-10916
• Greenberg S, Carvey H, Hitchcock L, Chang S. 2003; Temporal properties of spontaneous speech: a syllable-centric perspective. J Phonetics 31: 465-485
• Hämäläinen JA, Leppänen PHT, Eklund K, Thomson J, Richardson U, Guttorm TK, Witton C, Poikkeus A-M, Goswami U, Lyytinen H. 2009; Common variance in amplitude envelope perception tasks and their impact on phoneme duration perception and reading and spelling in Finnish children with reading disabilities. Appl Psycholinguist 30 (03) 511-530
• Houtgast T, Steeneken H. 1985; A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am 77: 1069-1077
• Howell P, Rosen S. 1983; Production and perception of rise time in the voiceless affricate/fricative distinction. J Acoust Soc Am 73 (03) 976-984
• Jerger J, Musiek F. 2000; Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing disorders in school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol 11 (09) 467-474
• Joris PX, Schreiner CE, Rees A. 2004; Neural processing of amplitude-modulated sounds. Physiol Rev 84 (02) 541-577
• Keith R. 2000. Random Gap Detection Test. St Louis, MO: AUDiTEC;
• King WM, Lombardino LJ, Crandell CC, Leonard CM. 2003; Comorbid auditory processing disorder in developmental dyslexia. Ear Hear 24 (05) 448-456
• MathWorks Inc 2014. MATLAB (Release 2014b). Natick, MA: The MathWorks Inc.; [Computer Software]
• McArthur G, Kohnen S, Larsen L, Jones K, Anandakumar T, Banales E, Castles A. 2013; Getting to grips with the heterogeneity of developmental dyslexia. Cogn Neuropsychol 30 (01) 1-24
• Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran JA, Zaida E. 2005; GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear 26 (06) 608-618
• Nittrouer S. 2006; Children hear the forest. J Acoust Soc Am 120 (04) 1799-1802
• Phillips DP. 1999; Auditory gap detection, perceptual channels, and temporal resolution in speech perception. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (06) 343-354
• Phillips DP, Hall SE. 2000; Independence of frequency channels in auditory temporal gap detection. J Acoust Soc Am 108 (06) 2957-2963
• Picheny MA, Durlach NI, Braida LD. 1985; Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. J Speech Hear Res 28 (01) 96-103
• Picheny MA, Durlach NI, Braida LD. 1986; Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. J Speech Hear Res 29 (04) 434-446
• Poelmans H, Luts H, Vandermosten M, Boets B, Ghesquière P, Wouters J. 2011; Reduced sensitivity to slow-rate dynamic auditory information in children with dyslexia. Res Dev Disabil 32 (06) 2810-2819
• Rosen S. 1992; Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336 1278 367-373
• Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. 1995; Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270 5234 303-304
• Specht K. 2014; Neuronal basis of speech comprehension. Hear Res 307 (378) 121-135
• Stevens KN. 2002; Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. J Acoust Soc Am 111 (04) 1872-1891
• Vermiglio AJ. 2014; On the clinical entity in audiology: (central) auditory processing and speech recognition in noise disorders. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (09) 904-917
• Vermiglio AJ. 2016; On diagnostic accuracy in audiology: central site of lesion and central auditory processing disorder studies. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (02) 141-156