1995
DOI: 10.1080/07434619512331277299
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of supplemental linguistic cues on the intelligibility of severely dysarthric speakers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, research suggests that different low tech AAC strategies, used in conjunction with natural speech, may be promising interventions for increasing intelligibility by enhancing listeners' contextual knowledge (Hustad & Beukelman, 2001;Hustad & Garcia, 2002). 1 Specifically, alphabet supplementation (Beukelman & Yorkston, 1977;Crow & Enderby, 1989;Hustad & Beukelman, 2001;Hustad & Garcia, 2002), topic supplementation (Carter, Yorkston, Strand, & Hammen, 1996;Dongilli, 1994;Garcia & Cannito, 1996;Hustad & Beukelman, 2001), and combined supplementation (Beliveau, Hodge, & Hagler, 1995;Hustad & Beukelman, 2001) have all been shown to increase intelligibility significantly, relative to habitual speech. 2 Each of these strategies serves to provide listeners with different kinds of contextual information about the content of the speaker's message.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In fact, research suggests that different low tech AAC strategies, used in conjunction with natural speech, may be promising interventions for increasing intelligibility by enhancing listeners' contextual knowledge (Hustad & Beukelman, 2001;Hustad & Garcia, 2002). 1 Specifically, alphabet supplementation (Beukelman & Yorkston, 1977;Crow & Enderby, 1989;Hustad & Beukelman, 2001;Hustad & Garcia, 2002), topic supplementation (Carter, Yorkston, Strand, & Hammen, 1996;Dongilli, 1994;Garcia & Cannito, 1996;Hustad & Beukelman, 2001), and combined supplementation (Beliveau, Hodge, & Hagler, 1995;Hustad & Beukelman, 2001) have all been shown to increase intelligibility significantly, relative to habitual speech. 2 Each of these strategies serves to provide listeners with different kinds of contextual information about the content of the speaker's message.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Research has shown, for example, that training to increase domains of listener sophistication (Dagenais, Watts, Turnage, & Kennedy, 1999) as well as providing listening experience with speakers (DePaul & Kent, 2000;Flipsen, 1995;Liss, Spitzer, Caviness, & Alder, 2002 Spitzer, Liss, Caviness, & Alder, 2000) resulted in improved intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Additionally, studies have demonstrated that cuing strategies (Beliveau, Hodge, & Hagler, 1995;Dongilli, 1994;Yorkston, Strand, & Kennedy, 1996) provided by speakers to enhance spoken messages could have a beneficial affect on intelligibility.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Previous researchers have identified several types of contextual cues that significantly affect speech intelligibility scores, including (a) nonverbal cues (Garcia & Cannito, 1996;Garcia, Dagenais, & Cannito, 1998); (b) first letter (alphabet) and word class cues (e.g., identification of nouns and verbs in a single word transcription task) (Beliveau et al, 1995); and (c) the use of categorical or associative semantic cues determined prior to testing (Dongilli, 1994;Hammen, Yorkston, & Dowden, 1991).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low speech intelligibility can be a significant barrier to effective communication, and thus increasing intelligibility is an important intervention objective (Beliveau et al, 1995;Kent, 1993;Kent et al, 1989). Intelligibility can be improved by interventions aimed at improving articulation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One way to assess speech intelligibility is to present a recorded sample of an individual's speech to a listener, who transcribes what he or she hears. The number of correctly transcribed words is divided by the total number of words in the speech sample and results in a percentage of intelligibility (see Beliveau, Hodge, & Hagler, 1995;Beukelman & Yorkston, 1977;Dowden, 1997;Hustad, 2001;Hustad & Beukelman, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%