Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(06): 412-441
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19061
Research Article

Effects of the Carrier Phrase on Word Recognition Performances by Younger and Older Listeners Using Two Stimulus Paradigms

Richard H. Wilson
1   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
,
Victoria A. Sanchez
2   Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs through the Auditory and Vestibular Dysfunction Research Enhancement Award Program (REAP) at the VA Medical Center, Mountain Home, TN. Additional support was provided by the Arizona State University Foundation. Portions of this work, including participant compensation, were supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Summer Research Institute at the Florida Mental Health Institute.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Effects of the Carrier Phrase on Word Recognition Performances by Younger and Older Listeners Using Two Stimulus ParadigmsJ Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(06): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740141

Abstract

Background In the 1950s, with monitored live voice testing, the vu meter time constant and the short durations and amplitude modulation characteristics of monosyllabic words necessitated the use of the carrier phrase amplitude to monitor (indirectly) the presentation level of the words. This practice continues with recorded materials. To relieve the carrier phrase of this function, first the influence that the carrier phrase has on word recognition performance needs clarification, which is the topic of this study.

Purpose Recordings of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by two female speakers were used to compare word recognition performances with and without the carrier phrases when the carrier phrase and test word were (1) in the same utterance stream with the words excised digitally from the carrier (VA-1 speaker) and (2) independent of one another (VA-2 speaker). The 50-msec segment of the vowel in the target word with the largest root mean square amplitude was used to equate the target word amplitudes.

Research Design A quasi-experimental, repeated measures design was used.

Study Sample Twenty-four young normal-hearing adults (YNH; M = 23.5 years; pure-tone average [PTA] = 1.3-dB HL) and 48 older hearing loss listeners (OHL; M = 71.4 years; PTA = 21.8-dB HL) participated in two, one-hour sessions.

Data Collection and Analyses Each listener had 16 listening conditions (2 speakers × 2 carrier phrase conditions × 4 presentation levels) with 100 randomized words, 50 different words by each speaker. Each word was presented 8 times (2 carrier phrase conditions × 4 presentation levels [YNH, 0- to 24-dB SL; OHL, 6- to 30-dB SL]). The 200 recorded words for each condition were randomized as 8, 25-word tracks. In both test sessions, one practice track was followed by 16 tracks alternated between speakers and randomized by blocks of the four conditions. Central tendency and repeated measures analyses of variance statistics were used.

Results With the VA-1 speaker, the overall mean recognition performances were 6.0% (YNH) and 8.3% (OHL) significantly better with the carrier phrase than without the carrier phrase. These differences were in part attributed to the distortion of some words caused by the excision of the words from the carrier phrases. With the VA-2 speaker, recognition performances on the with and without carrier phrase conditions by both listener groups were not significantly different, except for one condition (YNH listeners at 8-dB SL). The slopes of the mean functions were steeper for the YNH listeners (3.9%/dB to 4.8%/dB) than for the OHL listeners (2.4%/dB to 3.4%/dB) and were <1%/dB steeper for the VA-1 speaker than for the VA-2 speaker. Although the mean results were clear, the variability in performance differences between the two carrier phrase conditions for the individual participants and for the individual words was striking and was considered in detail.

Conclusion The current data indicate that word recognition performances with and without the carrier phrase (1) were different when the carrier phrase and target word were produced in the same utterance with poorer performances when the target words were excised from their respective carrier phrases (VA-1 speaker), and (2) were the same when the carrier phrase and target word were produced as independent utterances (VA-2 speaker).

Keywords

auditory perception - carrier phrase - normal hearing for pure tones - sensorineural hearing loss - speech perception - word recognition

Notes

Portions of this work were presented at the annual conference of the American Auditory Society in Scottsdale, AZ, March 1, 2019.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
03 August 2020

© 2020. American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Adobe Systems, Inc. Adobe Audition CS6. San Jose, CA; 2012
  • 2 American National Standards Institute. Specifications for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-2010). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 3 American Standards Association. American Recommended Practice for Volume Measurements of Electrical Speech and Program Waves (C16.5-1954). New York, NY: American Standards Association; 1954
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Beattie RC, Svihovec SA, Edgerton BJ. Comparison of speech detection and spondee thresholds for half versus full-list intelligibility scores with MLV and taped presentations of NU-6. J Am Audiol Soc 1978; 3 (06) 267-272
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bonino AY, Leibold LJ, Buss E. Release from perceptual masking for children and adults: benefit of a carrier phrase. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (01) 3-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bladon RAW, Henton CG, Pickering JB. Towards an auditory theory of speaker normalization. Lang Commun 1984; 4 (01) 59-69
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Campanelli PA. A measure of intra-list stability of four PAL word lists. J Aud Res 1962; 2 (01) 50-55
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Carhart R, Tillman TW, Greetis ES. Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. J Acoust Soc Am 1969; 45 (03) 694-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Causey GD, Hood LJ, Hermanson C, Bowling LS. The Maryland CNC test: normative studies. Audiology 1984; 23 (06) 552-568
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Chinn HA, Gannett DK, Morris RM. A new standard volume indicator and reference level. Bell Labs Tech J 1940; 19 (01) 94-137
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Davis H. Tests of hearing. In: Davis H. ed. Hearing and Deafness: A Guide for Laymen. New York, NY: Rinehart Books; 1947: 125-160
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Department of Veterans Affairs. Speech Recognition and Identification Materials. Disc 4.0. Mountain Home, TN: VA Medical Center; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Egan JP. Articulation testing methods. The Laryngoscope 1948; 58 (09) 955-991
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Elpern B. The relative stability of half list and full list discrimination tests. The Laryngoscope 1961; 71 (01) 30-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fletcher H, Steinberg JC. Articulation testing methods. Bell Sys Tech J 1929; 8 (04) 806-854
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Fowler CA. Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1981; 24 (01) 127-139
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Fowler CA. Parsing coarticulated speech in perception: effects of coarticulation resistance. J Phonet 2005; 33 (02) 199-213
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Gelfand SA. Use of the carrier phrase in live voice speech discrimination testing. J Aud Res 1975; 15 (02) 107-110
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Gladstone VS, Siegenthaler BM. Carrier phrase and speech intelligibility test score. J Aud Res 1971; 11 (01) 101-103
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Grubb PA. Some considerations in the use of half-list speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res 1963; 6 (03) 294-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Halpin C, Rauch SD. Improvement in word recognition score with level is associated with hearing aid ownership among patients with hearing loss. Audiol Neurotol 2012; 17 (03) 139-147
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Haskins H. A phonetically balanced test of speech discrimination for children. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University; 1949
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 1952; 17 (03) 321-337
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Johnson K. Speaker normalization in speech perception. In: Pisoni DB, Remez RE. eds. The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2005: 363-389
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Knight K, Margolis RH. Magnitude estimation of loudness II: loudness perception in presbycusic listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27 (01) 28-32
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Lobdell BE, Allen JB. A model of the VU (volume-unit) meter, with speech applications. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121 (01) 279-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lynn JM, Brotman SR. Perceptual significance of the CID W-22 carrier phrase. Ear Hear 1981; 2 (03) 95-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Margolis RH, Glasberg BR, Creeke S, Moore BC. AMTAS(r): automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: validation studies. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (03) 185-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Margolis RH, Saly GL, Le C, Laurence J. Qualind(tm): a method for assessing the accuracy of automated tests. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (01) 78-89
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Markham D, Hazan V. The effect of talker-and listener-related factors on intelligibility for a real-word, open-set perception test. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (04) 725-737
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Martin FN, Champlin CA, Perez DD. The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (09) 509-513
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Martin FN, Hawkins RR, Bailey HAT. The nonessentiality of the carrier phrase in phonetically balanced (PB) word testing. J Aud Res 1962; 2 (04) 319-322
    Google Scholar
  • 33 McArdle R, Wilson RH. Predicting word-recognition performance in noise by young listeners with normal hearing using acoustic, phonetic, and lexical variables. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (06) 507-518
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 McKnight JG. Some Questions and Answers on the Standard Volume Indicator (“vu meter”). 2006 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.193.1938&rep=rep1&type=pdf . Accessed December 18, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Miller GA, Heis GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol 1951; 41 (05) 329-335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): a brief cognitive screening tool for detection of mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Pisoni DB. Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In: Johnson K, Mullennix JW. eds. Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1997: 9-32
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Pickett JM, Pollack I. Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: effects of rate of utterance and duration of excerpt. Lang Speech 1963; 6 (03) 151-164
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Pollack I. Auditory informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am 1975; 57 (01) S5
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Redford MA, Kallay JE, Bogdanov SV, Vatikiotis-Tateson E. Leveraging audiovisual speech perception to measure anticipatory coarticulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2018; 144 (04) 2447-2461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Resnick DM. Reliability of the twenty-five word phonetically balanced lists. J Aud Res 1962; 2 (01) 5-12
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Robjohns H. Why do waveforms sometimes look lop-sided? Sound on Sound. 2013 http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may13/articles/qanda-0513-1.htm . Accessed May 13, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Stevens SS, Egan JP, Miller GA. Methods of measuring speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 1947; 19 (05) 771-780
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Studebaker GA. A rationalized arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 1985; 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Thwing EJ. Effect of repetition on articulation scores for PB words. J Acoust Soc Am 1956; 28 (02) 302-303
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report; 1966
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Wilson RH. Amplitude (vu and rms) and temporal (msec) measures of two Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 recordings. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (04) 346-354
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Wilson RH, Margolis RH. Measurement of the auditory thresholds for speech stimuli. In: Konkle D, Rintelmann W. eds. Chapter IV in Principles of Speech Audiometry. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 1983: 79-126
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Wilson RH, McArdle R, Roberts H. A comparison of recognition performances in speech-spectrum noise by listeners with normal hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU-6, W-1 spondaic words, and monosyllabic digits spoken by the same speaker. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (06) 496-506
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Wilson RH, Shanks JE, Akin FW, Johnson E, Murnane O, Noe C, Smith S, Bratt G. The Audiology Primer for Students and Health Care Professionals. 3rd ed. Mountain Home, TN: VA Medical Center; 2009. https://www.etsu.edu/crhs/aslp/audiology/documents/audiologyprimer.pdf . Accessed May 16, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Wilson RH, Strouse AL. Auditory measures with speech signals. In: Musiek FE, Rintelmann WF. eds. Chapter 2 in Contemporary Perspectives in Hearing Assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1999: 21-66
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Wilson RH. A comparison of word-recognition performances on the auditec and VA recorded versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by young listeners with normal hearing and by older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss using a randomized presentation level paradigm. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (05) 370-395
    PubMedGoogle Scholar