Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:34:20.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptual restoration in children versus adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

ROCHELLE S. NEWMAN
ROCHELLE S. NEWMAN
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children often listen to speech in noisy environments, where they must use prior knowledge to help them interpret the intended signal. The present experiment compares school-aged children's and adults' use of one such form of prior knowledge, as demonstrated in the perceptual restoration effect. Children, like adults, perform better when speech is intermittently replaced with noise than when it is replaced with silence, suggesting that children are able to make use of prior knowledge to help them restore interrupted signals. Despite this fact, children appear to be more affected by acoustic signal disruptions than are adult listeners, suggesting they will experience greater difficulty in noisy environments.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 481 - 493
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bashford J. A., & Warren R. M. 1987 Multiple phonemic restorations follow the rules for auditory induction. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 114– 121.Google Scholar
Braaten R. F., & Leary J. C. 1999 Temporal induction of missing birdsong segments in European starlings. Psychological Science, 10, 162– 166.Google Scholar
Carey S. 1978 The child as word learner. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DeWitt L. A., & Samuel A. G. 1990 The role of knowledge-based expectations in music perception: Evidence from musical restoration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 123– 144.Google Scholar
Elliott L. L., Busse L. A., Partridge R., Rupert J., & DeGraaff R. 1986 Adult and child discrimination of CV syllables differing in voicing onset time. Child Development, 57, 628– 635.Google Scholar
Elliott L. L., Clifton L. A. B., & Servi D. G. 1983 Word frequency effects for a closed-set word identification task. Audiology, 22, 229– 240.Google Scholar
Elliott L. L., Connors S., Kille E., Levin S., Ball K., & Katz D. 1979 Children's understanding of monosyllabic nouns in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 12– 21.Google Scholar
Elliott L. L., Hammer M. A., Scholl M. E., & Wasowicz J. M. 1989 Age differences in discrimination of simulated single-formant frequency transitions. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 181– 186.Google Scholar
Finitzo–Hieber T., & Tillman T. W. 1978 Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 440– 458.Google Scholar
Hétu R., Truchon–Gagnon C., & Bilodeau S. A. 1990 Problems of noise in school settings: A review of literature and the results of an exploratory study. Journal of Speech–Language Pathology and Audiology, 14, 31– 39.Google Scholar
Kalikow D. N., Stevens K. N., & Elliott L. L. 1977 Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337– 1351.Google Scholar
Koroleva I. V., Kashina I. A., Sakhnovskaya O. S., & Shurgaya G. G. 1991 Perceptual restoration of a missing phoneme: New data on speech perception in children. Sensory Systems, 5, 191– 199.Google Scholar
Manlove E. E., Frank T., & Vernon–Feagans L. 2001 Why should we care about noise in classrooms and child care settings? Child & Youth Care Forum, 30, 55– 64.Google Scholar
McGregor K. K., Friedman R. M., Reilly R. M., & Newman R. M. 2002 Semantic representation and naming in young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 332– 346.Google Scholar
Picard M., & Bradley J. S. 2001 Revisiting speech interference in classrooms. Audiology, 40, 221– 244.Google Scholar
Powers G. L., & Wilcox J. C. 1977 Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech with and without intervening noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 195– 199.Google Scholar
Samuel A. 1996 Phoneme restoration. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 647– 653.Google Scholar
Samuel A. G. 1981a Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 474– 494.Google Scholar
Samuel A. G. 1981b The role of bottom-up confirmation in the phonemic restoration illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 7, 1124– 1131.Google Scholar
Samuel A. G. 1987 Lexical uniqueness effects in phonemic restoration. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 36– 56.Google Scholar
Samuel A. G. 1996 Does lexical information influence the perceptual restoration of phonemes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 28– 51.Google Scholar
Samuel A. G. 1997 Lexical activation produces potent phonemic percepts. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 97– 127.Google Scholar
Sasaki T. 1980 Sound restoration and temporal localization of noise in speech and music sounds. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 39, 79– 88.Google Scholar
Schultz–Westre C. 1985 A visual analog of phonemic restorations: Sign restoration in American Sign Language. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
Smith M. K. 1941 Measurement of the size of general English vocabulary through the elementary grades and high school. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 24, 311– 345.Google Scholar
Walley A. C. 1987 Young children's detections of word-initial and -final mispronunciations in constrained and unconstrained contexts. Cognitive Development, 2, 145– 167.Google Scholar
Warren R. M. 1970 Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167, 392– 393.Google Scholar
Warren R. M., & Obusek C. J. 1971 Speech perception and phonemic restorations. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 358– 362.Google Scholar
Warren R. M., & Warren R. P. 1970 Auditory illusions and confusions. Scientific American, 223, 30– 36.Google Scholar