Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Purpose: Twenty years ago, von Hapsburg and Peña (2002) wrote a tutorial that reviewed the literature on speech audiometry and bilingualism and outlined valuable recommendations to increase the rigor of the evidence base. This review article returns to that seminal tutorial to reflect on how that advice was applied over the last 20 years and to provide updated recommendations for future inquiry. Method: We conducted a focused review of the literature on masked-speech recognition for bilingual children and adults. First, we evaluated how studies published since 2002 described bilingual participants. Second, we reviewed the literature on native language masked-speech recognition. Third, we discussed theoretically motivated experimental work. Fourth, we outlined how recent research in bilingual speech recognition can be used to improve clinical practice. Results: Research conducted since 2002 commonly describes bilingual samples in terms of their language status, competency, and history. Bilingualism was not consistently associated with poor masked-speech recognition. For example, bilinguals who were exposed to English prior to age 7 years and who were dominant in English performed comparably to monolinguals for masked-sentence recognition tasks. To the best of our knowledge, there are no data to document the masked-speech recognition ability of these bilinguals in their other language compared to a second monolingual group, which is an important next step. Nonetheless, individual factors that commonly vary within bilingual populations were associated with masked-speech recognition and included language dominance, competency, and age of acquisition. We identified methodological issues in sampling strategies that could, in part, be responsible for inconsistent findings between studies. For instance, disparities in socioeconomic status (SES) between recruited bilingual and monolingual groups could cause confounding bias within the research design. Conclusions: Dimensions of the bilingual linguistic profile should be considered in clinical practice to inform counseling and (re)habilitation strategies since susceptibility to masking is elevated in at least one language for most bilinguals. Future research should continue to report language status, competency, and history but should also report language stability and demand for use data. In addition, potential confounds (e.g., SES, educational attainment) when making group comparisons between monolinguals and bilinguals must be considered.
Purpose: Twenty years ago, von Hapsburg and Peña (2002) wrote a tutorial that reviewed the literature on speech audiometry and bilingualism and outlined valuable recommendations to increase the rigor of the evidence base. This review article returns to that seminal tutorial to reflect on how that advice was applied over the last 20 years and to provide updated recommendations for future inquiry. Method: We conducted a focused review of the literature on masked-speech recognition for bilingual children and adults. First, we evaluated how studies published since 2002 described bilingual participants. Second, we reviewed the literature on native language masked-speech recognition. Third, we discussed theoretically motivated experimental work. Fourth, we outlined how recent research in bilingual speech recognition can be used to improve clinical practice. Results: Research conducted since 2002 commonly describes bilingual samples in terms of their language status, competency, and history. Bilingualism was not consistently associated with poor masked-speech recognition. For example, bilinguals who were exposed to English prior to age 7 years and who were dominant in English performed comparably to monolinguals for masked-sentence recognition tasks. To the best of our knowledge, there are no data to document the masked-speech recognition ability of these bilinguals in their other language compared to a second monolingual group, which is an important next step. Nonetheless, individual factors that commonly vary within bilingual populations were associated with masked-speech recognition and included language dominance, competency, and age of acquisition. We identified methodological issues in sampling strategies that could, in part, be responsible for inconsistent findings between studies. For instance, disparities in socioeconomic status (SES) between recruited bilingual and monolingual groups could cause confounding bias within the research design. Conclusions: Dimensions of the bilingual linguistic profile should be considered in clinical practice to inform counseling and (re)habilitation strategies since susceptibility to masking is elevated in at least one language for most bilinguals. Future research should continue to report language status, competency, and history but should also report language stability and demand for use data. In addition, potential confounds (e.g., SES, educational attainment) when making group comparisons between monolinguals and bilinguals must be considered.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform a cross-language comparison of two commonly used sentence-recognition materials (i.e., Hearing in Noise Test [HINT] and AzBio) in American English (AE) and Mandarin Chinese (MC). Designs: Sixty normal-hearing, native English-speaking and 60 normal-hearing, native Chinese-speaking young adults were recruited to participate in three experiments. In each experiment, the subjects were tested in their native language. In experiments I and II, noise and tone vocoders were used to process the HINT and AzBio sentences, respectively. The number of channels varied from 1 to 9, with an envelope cutoff frequency of 160 Hz. In experiment III, the AE AzBio and the MC HINT sentences were tested in speech-shaped noise at various signal to noise ratios (i.e., −20, −15, −10, −5, and 0 dB). The performance-intensity functions of sentence recognition using the two sets of sentence materials were compared. Results: Results of experiments I and II using vocoder processing indicated that the AE and MC versions of HINT and AzBio sentences differed in level of difficulty. The AE version yielded higher recognition performance than the MC version for both HINT and AzBio sentences. The type of vocoder processing (i.e., tone and noise vocoders) produced little differences in sentence-recognition performance in both languages. Incidentally, the AE AzBio sentences and the MC HINT sentences had similar recognition performance under vocoder processing. Such similarity was further confirmed under noise conditions in experiment III, where the performance-intensity functions of the two sets of sentences were closely matched. Conclusions: The HINT and AzBio sentence materials developed in AE and MC differ in level of difficulty. The AE AzBio and the MC HINT sentence materials are similar in level of difficulty. In cross-language comparative research, the MC HINT and the AE AzBio sentences should be chosen for the respective language as the target sentence-recognition test materials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.