Effects of short- and long-term changes in auditory feedback on vowel and sibilant contrasts.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of short- and long-term changes in auditory feedback on vowel and sibilant contrasts and to evaluate hypotheses arising from a model of speech motor planning. METHOD: The perception and production of vowel and sibilant contrasts were measured in 8 postlingually deafened adults prior to activation of their cochlear implant speech processors, 1 month postactivation, and 1 year postactivation. Measures were taken postactivation both with and without auditory feedback. Contrast measures were also made for a group of speakers with reportedly normal hearing speaking with masked and unmasked auditory feedback. RESULTS: Vowel and sibilant contrasts, measured in the absence of auditory feedback after 1 month of prosthesis use, were diminished compared with their values measured before prosthesis. Contrasts measured in the absence of auditory feedback after 1 year's experience with the prosthesis were increased compared with their values after 1 month's experience. In both time samples, contrasts were enhanced when auditory feedback was restored. CONCLUSION: The provision of prosthetic hearing to postlingually deafened adults impaired their phonemic contrasts at first, as their auditory feedback had novel characteristics. Once auditory feedback became recalibrated with prosthesis use, it could, in turn, revise feedforward commands that control the contrasts in its absence.

On the structure of phoneme categories in listeners with cochlear implants.

PURPOSE: To describe cochlear implant users' phoneme labeling, discrimination, and prototypes for a vowel and a sibilant contrast, and to assess the effects of 1 year's experience with prosthetic hearing. METHOD: Based on naturally produced clear examples of "boot," "beet," "said," and "shed" by 1 male and 1 female speaker, continua with 13 stimuli were synthesized for each contrast. Seven hearing controls labeled those stimuli and assigned them goodness ratings, as did 7 implant users at 1-month postimplant. One year later, these measures were repeated, and within category discrimination, d', was assessed. RESULTS: Compared with controls, implant users' vowel and sibilant labeling slopes were substantially shallower but improved over 1 year of prosthesis use. Their sensitivity to phonetic differences within phoneme categories was about half that of controls. The slopes of their goodness rating functions were shallower and did not improve. Their prototypes for the sibilant contrast (but not the vowels) were closer to one another and did not improve by moving apart. CONCLUSIONS: Implant users' phoneme labeling and within-category perceptual structure were anomalous at 1-month postimplant. After 1 year of prosthesis use, phoneme labeling categories had sharpened but within category discrimination was well below that of hearing controls.

Effects of bite blocks and hearing status on vowel production.

This study explores the effects of hearing status and bite blocks on vowel production. Normal-hearing controls and postlingually deaf adults read elicitation lists of /hVd/ syllables with and without bite blocks and auditory feedback. Deaf participants' auditory feedback was provided by a cochlear prosthesis and interrupted by switching off their implant microphones. Recording sessions were held before prosthesis was provided and one month and one year after. Long-term absence of auditory feedback was associated with heightened dispersion of vowel tokens, which was inflated further by inserting bite blocks. The restoration of some hearing with prosthesis reduced dispersion. Deaf speakers' vowel spaces were reduced in size compared to controls. Insertion of bite blocks reduced them further because of the speakers' incomplete compensation. A year of prosthesis use increased vowel contrast with feedback during elicitation. These findings support the inference that models of speech production must assign a role to auditory feedback in error-based correction of feedforward commands for subsequent articulatory gestures.

The distinctness of speakers' productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts.

This study addresses the hypothesis that the more accurately a speaker discriminates a vowel contrast, the more distinctly the speaker produces that contrast. Measures of speech production and perception were collected from 19 young adult speakers of American English. In the production experiment, speakers repeated the words cod, cud, who'd, and hood in a carrier phrase at normal, clear, and fast rates. Articulatory movements and the associated acoustic signal were recorded, yielding measures of contrast distance between /a/ and /[see text for symbol]/ and between /u/ and /[see text for symbol]/. In the discrimination experiment, sets of seven natural-sounding stimuli ranging from cod to cud and who'd to hood were synthesized, based on productions by one male and one female speaker. The continua were then presented to each of the 19 speakers in labeling and discrimination tasks. Consistent with the hypothesis, speakers with discrimination scores above the median produced greater acoustic contrasts than speakers with discrimination scores at or below the median. Such a relation between speech production and perception is compatible with a model of speech production in which articulatory movements for vowels are planned primarily in auditory space.

The distinctness of speakers' /s/-/S/ contrast is related to their auditory discrimination and use of an articulatory saturation effect.

This study examines individual differences in producing the sibilant contrast in American English and the relation of those differences to 2 speaker characteristics: (a) use of a quantal biomechanical effect (called a "saturation effect") in producing the sibilants and (b) performance on a test of sibilant discrimination. Twenty participants produced the sibilants /s/ and /S/ in normal-, clear-, and fast-speaking conditions. The degree to which the participants used a saturation effect in producing /s/ and /S/ was assessed with a custom-made sensor that measured contact of the underside of the tongue tip with the lower alveolar ridge; such contact normally occurs during the production of /s/ but not /S/. The acuteness of the participants' discrimination of the sibilant contrast was measured using the ABX paradigm and synthesized sibilants. Differences among speakers in the degree of acoustic contrast between /s/ and /S/ that they produced proved related to differences among them in their use of contact contrastively and in their discriminative performance. The most distinct sibilant productions were obtained from participants who used contact in producing /s/ but not /S/ and who had high discrimination scores. The participants who did not use contact differentially when producing the 2 sibilants and who also discriminated the synthetic sibilants less well produced the least distinct sibilant contrasts. Intermediate degrees of sibilant contrast were found with participants who used contact differentially or discriminated well. These findings are compatible with a model of speech motor planning in which goals for phonemic speech movements are in somatosensory and auditory spaces.