Informational masking of complex tones in dyslexic children

Calcus, Axelle; Colin, Cécile; Deltenre, Paul; Kolinsky, Régine

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2014.10.026

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation is in line with previous findings of poor use of auditory lateralization cues in dyslexic children (Smith and Griffiths, 1987;Calcus et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…A second (not necessarily incompatible) explanation is that reading acquisition could by itself strengthen auditory perception, as orthographic knowledge is known to influence performance in auditory tasks, especially in noise (Pattamadilok et al, 2011). Whatever the explanation, the absence of deficit when compared to reading level-matched children, together with the absence of any correlation between dyslexics' performance in noise and either reading or metaphonological abilities, are inconsistent with previous studies claiming that auditory perception in noise is a core difficulty, inherent to dyslexia (Ziegler et al, 2009;Calcus et al, 2015). Yet, the sample used in the current study is quite small (n ¼ 30).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Very few studies specifically investigated IM in this population. Our recent work suggests that dyslexic children experience difficulties in complex tone sequences inducing pure IM in comparison to both reading level-and age-matched controls (Calcus et al, 2015). In contrast, Messaoud-Galusi et al (2011) and Hazan et al (2013) failed to evidence a deficit in dyslexics presented with a babble noise background.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…In order to minimize cochlear EM, target and maskers were presented dichotically. Because dyslexics were previously shown to exhibit a failure of unilateral selective attention with nonspeech sounds (Smith and Griffiths, 1987;Calcus et al, 2015), the degree of predictability of the target lateralization was varied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Informational masking of speech in dyslexic children

Calcus

Colin

Deltenre

et al. 2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies evaluating speech perception in noise have reported inconsistent results regarding a potential deficit in dyslexic children. So far, most of them investigated energetic masking. The present study evaluated situations inducing mostly informational masking, which reflects cognitive interference induced by the masker. Dyslexic children were asked to identify a female target syllable presented in quiet, babble, unmodulated, and modulated speech-shaped noise. Whereas their performance was comparable to normal-reading children in quiet, it dropped significantly in all noisy conditions compared to age-, but not reading level-matched controls. Interestingly, noise affected similarly the reception of voicing, place, and manner of articulation in dyslexic and normal-reading children.

show abstract

“…This observation is in line with previous findings of poor use of auditory lateralization cues in dyslexic children (Smith and Griffiths, 1987;Calcus et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Informational masking of speech in dyslexic children

Calcus

Colin

Deltenre

et al. 2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding is at odds with previous research suggesting that dyslexic individuals have difficulties extracting regularities from incoming sensory streams (Ahissar et al, 2006), especially in noise (Calcus et al, 2015a;Chandrasekaran et al, 2009). Yet increasing the number of repetitions of the target consonant generally improved dyslexics' SIN perception in a similar way to controls'.…”

Section: Do Dyslexic Children Benefit From Perceptual Cues To Improcontrasting

confidence: 97%

Peripheral and central contribution to the difficulty of speech in noise perception in dyslexic children

Calcus

Deltenre

Colin

et al. 2017

Developmental Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noise typically induces both peripheral and central masking of an auditory target. Whereas the idea that a deficit of speech in noise perception is inherent to dyslexia is still debated, most studies have actually focused on the peripheral contribution to the dyslexics' difficulties of perceiving speech in noise. Here, we investigated the respective contribution of both peripheral and central noise in three groups of children: dyslexic, chronological age matched controls (CA), and reading-level matched controls (RL). In all noise conditions, dyslexics displayed significantly lower performance than CA controls. However, they performed similarly or even better than RL controls. Scrutinizing individual profiles failed to reveal a strong consistency in the speech perception difficulties experienced across all noise conditions, or across noise conditions and reading-related performances. Taken together, our results thus suggest that both peripheral and central interference contribute to the poorer speech in noise perception of dyslexic children, but that this difficulty is not a core deficit inherent to dyslexia.

show abstract