2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.07.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Vowel intelligibility in children with cochlear implants: An acoustic and articulatory study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of acoustic analysis for vowel productions by Mandarin-speaking children with CIs are consistent with those reported for children with CIs using Croatian, German and English in that they all exhibit smaller vowel spaces and more variant F2 patterns compared with children with NH (Liker, Mildner, and Sindija 2007;Neumeyer, Harrington, and Draxler 2010;Turgeon et al 2017). For instance, Liker, Mildner, and Sindija (2007) showed that Croatian-speaking children with CIs have higher F2 values in /i e a o u/ than their NH peers.…”
Section: Speech Production Abilities In Children With Cis and Nh: Cross-linguistic Comparisonssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The results of acoustic analysis for vowel productions by Mandarin-speaking children with CIs are consistent with those reported for children with CIs using Croatian, German and English in that they all exhibit smaller vowel spaces and more variant F2 patterns compared with children with NH (Liker, Mildner, and Sindija 2007;Neumeyer, Harrington, and Draxler 2010;Turgeon et al 2017). For instance, Liker, Mildner, and Sindija (2007) showed that Croatian-speaking children with CIs have higher F2 values in /i e a o u/ than their NH peers.…”
Section: Speech Production Abilities In Children With Cis and Nh: Cross-linguistic Comparisonssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…One of the most efficient ways to disambiguate such interpretations is to examine production with and without auditory feedback, i.e., by turning the CI on and off. Such studies differ in their outcome, with some showing differences between the two conditions (Poissant et al, 2006; Bharadwaj et al, 2007) and others finding no difference in the acoustics of their speech (Tye-Murray et al, 1996; Turgeon et al, 2017). Applied to lexical tones, similar designs would be greatly informative.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applied to lexical tones, similar designs would be greatly informative. Also critical is the fact that the mechanics of speech production may actually differ (e.g., when the feedback is on or off) even when no acoustic difference is observed in the recordings, which is why articulatory measures may eventually be necessary to fully understand the abnormal vocal production by CI users and their relation to experience-related plasticity (Turgeon et al, 2015, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Access to speech sounds in the early years of life is mandatory for the optimal development of expressive language and speech. The absence of auditory input over these years can affect irreversible changes in the auditory cortex, as a result of which children with primary hearing impairment may face serious challenges in the perception and articulation of speech, even if they use amplifying devices [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hearing impairment can affect the perception and hearing of speech sounds and may reduce or distort them and can also affect speech and language skills, articulation accuracy, speech intelligibility, reading and writing, verbal working memory skills and social functions. To this end, specialists should identify limitations in auditory perception caused by auditory defects [2,5,11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%