Comparison of two multichannel tactile devices as supplements to speechreading in a postlingually deafened adult.
Comparison of two multichannel tactile devices as supplements to speechreading in a postlingually deafened adult.
复制标题
两种多通道触觉设备作为语后聋成人语音阅读补充的比较。
DOI：
10.1097/00003446-199504000-00007
复制
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Boothroyd,A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Waldstein,RS;Boothroyd,A
目标：本研究的目的是进行一个单一的主题比较的有效性的两个多通道振动触觉设备，编码不同类别的语音信息。其中一种设备Portapitch被设计用于传输基频（FO）及其随时间的变化。另一个，TACTAID 7，旨在传达前两个共振峰频率（F1和F2）和他们的变化随着时间的推移。Design：该主题，一个postlingually adened成人，进行了密集的17周的训练和测试协议的Portapitch，然后完成了类似的17周的协议与TACTAID 7。通过单独的语音阅读、单独的触觉设备和语音阅读加触觉设备获得语音对比感知的性能指标，以及通过单独的语音阅读和语音阅读加触觉设备获得开放集单词和句子识别的性能指标。在语音对比测试中，受试者表现出一定的能力，感知发声，重音和语调对比使用Portapitch，但几乎没有证据表明TACTAID 7的语音对比感知。在开集单词识别测试中，两种器械均未观察到显著改善。在开集句子识别测试中，受试者表现出显着的9个百分点的增强效果使用Portapitch;平均5个百分点的增强效果提供的TACTAID 7是不具有统计学意义的significant.Conclusions：一个小的优势，有利于触觉显示FO相对于触觉显示的共振峰频率信息的语音对比测试和开集句子识别。然而，这种差异的意义值得怀疑，可能与顺序效应混淆。然而，受试者的偏好是触觉共振峰频率显示。
Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct a single-subject comparison of the effectiveness of two multichannel vibrotactile devices that encode different classes of speech information. One device, the Portapitch, is designed to convey fundamental frequency (FO) and its variation over time. The other, the TACTAID 7, is designed to convey the first two formant frequencies (F1 and F2) and their variation over time.Design: The subject, a postlingually deafened adult, underwent an intensive 17-wk training and testing protocol with the Portapitch and then completed a similar 17-wk protocol with the TACTAID 7. Performance measures were obtained on phonetic-contrast perception by speechreading alone, tactile device alone, and speechreading plus tactile device, and on open-set word and sentence recognition by speechreading alone and speechreading plus tactile device.Results: On phonetic-contrast testing, the subject demonstrated some ability to perceive voicing, stress, and intonation contrasts using the Portapitch, but gave little evidence of phonetic-contrast perception with the TACTAID 7. On open-set word recognition testing, no significant impmvements were seen with either device. On open-set sentence recognition testing, the subject showed a significant 9 percentage point enhancement effect using the Portapitch; the mean 5 percentage point enhancement effect provided by the TACTAID 7 was not statistically significant.Conclusions: A small advantage was seen in favor of the tactile display of FO relative to the tactile display of formant frequency information on both phonetic-contrast testing and open-set sentence recognition. The difference, however, was of questionable significance and could have been confounded with an order effect. Nevertheless, the subject's preference was for the tactile formant frequency display.