Prosody Perception and Production in Children with Hearing Loss and Age- and Gender-Matched Controls

Kalathottukaren, Rose Thomas; Purdy, Suzanne C.; Ballard, Elaine

doi:10.3766/jaaa.16001

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, studies investigating the suprasegmental features, such as pitch and duration, suggest that CI users are less successful in both the perception and production of these suprasegmental characteristics of speech (Green, Faulkner, Rosen, & Macherey, 2005;Kalathottukaren, Purdy, & Ballard, 2017;Kuo, Rosen, & Faulkner, 2008;Peng, Chatterjee, & Lu, 2012;Peng, Lu, & Chatterjee, 2009;Peng, Tomblin, Spencer, & Hurtig, 2007;Peng, Tomblin, & Turner, 2008, inter alia).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Production of Question Intonation by Young Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Does Age at Implantation Matter?

Lehnert-LeHouillier

Spencer

Machmer

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this observational study was to investigate the properties of sentence-final prosody in yes/no questions produced by cochlear implant (CI) users in order to determine whether and how the age at CI implantation impacts CI users' production of question intonation later in life. Method: We acoustically analyzed recordings from 46 young adult CI users and 10 young adults with normal hearing who read yes/no questions. Of the 46 CI users, 20 had received their CI before the age of 4.0 years (early implantation group), 15 between ages 4.0 and 8.11 years (midimplantation group), and 11 at the age of 9.0 years or later (late implantation group). We assessed the prosodic properties of the produced questions for each implantation group and the normal hearing comparison group (a) by measuring the sentence-final rise in fundamental frequency, (b) by labeling the question-final intonation contour using the

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Production of Question Intonation by Young Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Does Age at Implantation Matter?

Lehnert-LeHouillier

Spencer

Machmer

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite these limitations and its significant length, it has been utilized in research into pediatric populations as well as within Brazil, Canada and New Zealand. 42 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 …”

Section: Overview Of Current Available Music Assessment Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of music experience after cochlear implantation: A review of current tools and their utilization

Hwa

Wen

Ruckenstein

2021

World j. otorhinolaryngol.-head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To provide an overview of the current available music assessment tools after cochlear implantation (CI); to report on the utilization of music assessments in the literature; to propose potential future directions in music assessment after CI. Methods A thorough search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library through October 31, 2020. MeSH search terms, keywords, and phrases included “cochlear implant,” “cochlear prosthesis,” “auditory prosthesis,” “music,” “music assessment,” “music questionnaire,” “music perception,” “music enjoyment, and “music experience.” Potentially relevant studies were reviewed for inclusion, with particular focus on assessments developed specifically for the cochlear implant population and intended for widespread use. Results/conclusions Six hundred and forty-three studies were screened for relevance to assessment of music experience among cochlear implantees. Eighty-one studies ultimately met criteria for inclusion. There are multiple validated tools for assessment of music experience after cochlear implantation, each of which provide slightly differing insights into the patients’ subjective and/or objective post-activation experience. However, no single assessment tool has been adopted into widespread use and thus, much of the literature pertaining to this topic evaluates outcomes non-uniformly, including single-use assessments designed specifically for the study at hand. The lack of a widely accepted universal tool for assessment of music limits our collective understanding the contributory and mitigating factors applicable to current music experience of cochlear implantees, and limits our ability to uniformly evaluate the success of new implant technologies or music training paradigms.

show abstract

“…The 2003 edition of PEPS-C has been used to investigate the prosodic skills in children and teenagers with autism spectrum disorder [21,[29][30][31][32][33], in children with Williams syndrome [34][35][36][37][38], children with Down syndrome [39], children and adolescents with learning disabilities [30], children with language impairments [40], children with spina bifida [41], children with hearing loss fitted with either hearing aids or cochlear implants [42] and adults with cochlear implants [43].…”

Section: Prosody In Atypical Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Irish English PEPS-C (2015 edition) and Learners of ESL

Lee

Nyland

Peppé³

2021

Folia Phoniatr Logop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS-C) is a computerised test for assessing the abilities to understand and use speech prosody in communication. It has been used to obtain a profile of strengths and weaknesses in different prosodic forms and functions for different clinical populations (e.g., autism spectrum disorders, Down syndrome) and second language learners. The 2015 edition of PEPS-C incorporates four new subtests addressing the understanding and production of lexical stress and phrasal stress, and collapses four form subtests (Intonation/Short-Item Input and Output, Prosody/Long-Item Input and Output) into two (Discrimination, Imitation). However, the suitability of these new tasks has not been reported in any published studies, although they are likely to be relevant for learners of English. Moreover, the present authors update the Irish English (IE) version of PEPS-C to the 2015 edition for another research project on prosodic skills in children with spina bifida. Hence, this paper reports the making of PEPS-C 2015 (IE) and examines the usefulness of this test in assessing a group of non-native speakers of English, as compared to a group of native speakers of IE. Methods: PEPS-C 2015 for Irish English was developed by adapting the test items of the UK English version of the test. The PEPS-C 2015 (IE) was then trialled on 25 native speakers of Irish English and 10 Spanish speakers who speak English as a second language (ESL). Results: All native speakers of Irish English showed competence (scored ≥75% correct) in the comprehension and expression of prosodic form and functions assessed. For the ESL speakers, the test identified two areas of possible difficulty for this group: Phrase Stress Comprehension and Expression, and Contrastive Stress Comprehension. Conclusion: The PEPS-C 2015, with its extra stress tasks, might therefore be useful as a prosody assessment tool for ESL speakers, particularly those with a Romance first language or at an early stage of learning, but further research is needed.

show abstract

Prosody Perception and Production in Children with Hearing Loss and Age- and Gender-Matched Controls

Cited by 26 publications

References 72 publications

The Production of Question Intonation by Young Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Does Age at Implantation Matter?

The Production of Question Intonation by Young Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Does Age at Implantation Matter?

Assessment of music experience after cochlear implantation: A review of current tools and their utilization

Irish English PEPS-C (2015 edition) and Learners of ESL

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About