Search for: All records

IntroductionListeners rapidly “tune” to unfamiliar accented speech, and some evidence also suggests that they may improve over multiple days of exposure. The present study aimed to measure accommodation of unfamiliar second language- (L2-) accented speech over a consecutive 5-day period using both a measure of listening performance (speech recognition accuracy) and a measure of cognitive load (a dual-task paradigm). MethodsAll subjects completed a dual-task paradigm with L1 and L2 accent on Days 1 and 5, and were given brief exposure to either L1 (control group) or unfamiliar L2 (training groups) accent on Days 2–4. One training group was exposed to the L2 accent via a standard speech transcription task while the other was exposed to the L2 accent via a transcription task that included implicit feedback (i.e., showing the correct answer after each trial). ResultsAlthough overall improvement in listening performance and reduction in cognitive load were observed from Days 1 to 5, our results indicated neither a larger benefit for the L2 accent training groups compared to the control group nor a difference based on the implicit feedback manipulation. DiscussionWe conclude that the L2 accent trainings implemented in the present study did not successfully promote long-term learning benefits of a statistically meaningful magnitude, presenting our findings as a methodologically informative starting point for future research on this topic. 

Purpose:Numerous tasks have been developed to measure receptive vocabulary, many of which were designed to be administered in person with a trained researcher or clinician. The purpose of the current study is to compare a common, in-person test of vocabulary with other vocabulary assessments that can be self-administered. Method:Fifty-three participants completed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) via online video call to mimic in-person administration, as well as four additional fully automated, self-administered measures of receptive vocabulary. Participants also completed three control tasks that do not measure receptive vocabulary. Results:Pearson correlations indicated moderate correlations among most of the receptive vocabulary measures (approximatelyr= .50–.70). As expected, the control tasks revealed only weak correlations to the vocabulary measures. However, subsets of items of the four self-administered measures of receptive vocabulary achieved high correlations with the PPVT (r> .80). These subsets were found through a repeated resampling approach. Conclusions:Measures of receptive vocabulary differ in which items are included and in the assessment task (e.g., lexical decision, picture matching, synonym matching). The results of the current study suggest that several self-administered tasks are able to achieve high correlations with the PPVT when a subset of items are scored, rather than the full set of items. These data provide evidence that subsets of items on one behavioral assessment can more highly correlate to another measure. In practical terms, these data demonstrate that self-administered, automated measures of receptive vocabulary can be used as reasonable substitutes of at least one test (PPVT) that requires human interaction. That several of the fully automated measures resulted in high correlations with the PPVT suggests that different tasks could be selected depending on the needs of the researcher. It is important to note the aim was not to establish clinical relevance of these measures, but establish whether researchers could use an experimental task of receptive vocabulary that probes a similar construct to what is captured by the PPVT, and use these measures of individual differences. 

Intelligibility measures, which assess the number of words or phonemes a listener correctly transcribes or repeats, are commonly used metrics for speech perception research. While these measures have many benefits for researchers, they also come with a number of limitations. By pointing out the strengths and limitations of this approach, including how it fails to capture aspects of perception such as listening effort, this article argues that the role of intelligibility measures must be reconsidered in fields such as linguistics, communication disorders, and psychology. Recommendations for future work in this area are presented. 

Previous research in speech perception has shown that perception is influenced by social factors that can result in behavioral consequences such as reduced intelligibility (i.e., a listeners’ ability to transcribe the speech they hear). However, little is known about these effects regarding Spanish speakers’ perception of heritage Spanish, Spanish spoken by individuals who have an ancestral and cultural connection to the Spanish language. Given that ideologies within the U.S. Latino community often equate Latino identity to speaking Spanish “correctly” and proficiently, there is a clear need to understand the potential influence these ideologies have on speech perception. Using a matched-guised methodology, we analyzed the influence of speaker social background information and listener social background information on speech perception. Participants completed a transcription task in which four different Spanish heritage speakers were paired with different social guises to determine if the speakers were perceived as equally intelligible under each guise condition. The results showed that social guise and listener social variables did not significantly predict intelligibility scores. We argue that the unique socio-political culture within the U.S. Latino community may lead to different effects of language ideology and social expectation on speech perception than what has been documented in previous work.