Citations

This study is the third in a series that has explored the source of intelligibility decrement in dysarthria by jointly considering signal characteristics and the cognitive–perceptual processes employed by listeners. A paradigm of lexical boundary error analysis was used to examine this interface by manipulating listener constraints with a brief familiarization procedure. If familiarization allows listeners to extract relevant segmental and suprasegmental information from dysarthric speech, they should obtain higher intelligibility scores than nonfamiliarized listeners, and their lexical boundary error patterns should approximate those obtained in misperceptions of normal speech. Listeners transcribed phrases produced by speakers with either hypokinetic or ataxic dysarthria after being familiarized with other phrases produced by these speakers. Data were compared to those of nonfamiliarized listeners [Liss et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 3415–3424 (2000)]. The familiarized groups obtained higher intelligibility scores than nonfamiliarized groups, and the effects were greater when the dysarthria type of the familiarization procedure matched the dysarthria type of the transcription task. Remarkably, no differences in lexical boundary error patterns were discovered between the familiarized and nonfamiliarized groups. Transcribers of the ataxic speech appeared to have difficulty distinguishing strong and weak syllables in spite of the familiarization. Results suggest that intelligibility decrements arise from the perceptual challenges posed by the degraded segmental and suprasegmental aspects of the signal, but that this type of familiarization process may differentially facilitate mapping segmental information onto existing phonological categories.

This investigation evaluated a possible source of reduced intelligibility in hypokinetic dysarthric speech, namely the mismatch between listeners’ perceptual strategies and the acoustic information available in the dysarthric speech signal. A paradigm of error analysis was adopted in which listener transcriptions of phrases were coded for the presence and type of word boundary errors. Seventy listeners heard 60 phrases produced by speakers with hypokinetic dysarthria. The six-syllable phrases alternated strong and weak syllables and ranged in length from three to five words. Lexical boundary violations were defined as erroneous insertions or deletions of lexical boundaries that occurred either before strong or before weak syllables. A total of 1596 lexical boundary errors in the listeners’ transcriptions was identified unanimously by three independent judges. The pattern of errors generally conformed with the predictions of the Metrical Segmentation Strategy hypothesis [Cutler and Norris, J. Exp. Psychol. 14, 113–121 (1988)] which posits that listeners attend to strong syllables to identify word onsets. However, the strength of adherence to this pattern varied across speakers. Comparison of acoustic evidence of syllabic strength to lexical boundary error patterns revealed a source of intelligibility deficit associated with this particular type of dysarthric speech pattern.

This investigation is the second in a series to examine a potential source of reduced intelligibility in dysarthric speech, namely the mismatch between listeners’ perceptual strategies and the acoustic information available in the dysarthric speech signal. Lexical boundary error (LBE) analysis was conducted on listener transcripts from phrases produced by speakers with hypokinetic dysarthria, ataxic dysarthria, and normal controls. By design, the hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthric tapes elicited similar intelligibility (words-correct) scores. However, they elicited different numbers and patterns of lexical boundary errors. The nature of the error pattern differences can be traced to the listeners’ use of available syllabic strength information to segment the acoustic stream. Specifically, although both dysarthric speech samples elicited numerous lexical boundary errors, those for the hypokinetic speech generally conformed to predictions offered from studies of degraded normal speech. Those for the ataxic speech did not conform strongly to such predictions. It appears that the prosodic deficits of the ataxic speech (tendency toward syllabic isochrony, excessive loudness variation, and reduced vowel working space consequent to reductions in vowel strength) posed more of a problem for listeners than did the prosodic deficits of the hypokinetic speech (rapid rate, monotony, reduced vowel working space).