Masked-Speech Recognition for Linguistically Diverse Populations: A Focused Review and Suggestions for the Future.
Masked-Speech Recognition for Linguistically Diverse Populations: A Focused Review and Suggestions for the Future.
复制标题
针对语言多样化人群的蒙面语音识别：重点回顾和对未来的建议。
DOI：
10.1044/2022_jslhr-22-00011
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Calandruccio,Lauren
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cowan,Tiana;Paroby,Caroline;Leibold,LoriJ;Buss,Emily;Rodriguez,Barbara;Calandruccio,Lauren
二十年前，von Hapsburg和Peña（2002）撰写了一篇教程，回顾了有关言语测听和双语的文献，并概述了增加证据基础严谨性的宝贵建议。这篇评论文章返回到开创性的教程，以反映在过去的20年中，如何应用的建议，并提供更新的建议，为今后的调查。MethodWe进行了一个重点审查的文献对双语儿童和成人的掩蔽语音识别。首先，我们评估了自2002年以来发表的研究如何描述双语参与者。其次，我们回顾了母语掩蔽语音识别的文献。第三，我们讨论了理论动机的实验工作。第四，我们概述了如何在双语语音识别的最新研究可以用来提高临床practice.ResultsResearch自2002年以来进行通常描述双语样本的语言状态，能力和历史。双语能力并不总是与掩蔽语音识别能力差有关。例如，在7岁之前接触英语并且在英语中占主导地位的双语者在掩蔽句子识别任务中表现出与单语者相同的能力。据我们所知，没有数据证明这些双语者在另一种语言中的掩蔽语音识别能力与第二个单语组相比，这是一个重要的下一步。尽管如此，双语人群中通常不同的个体因素与掩蔽语音识别相关，包括语言优势，能力和习得年龄。我们确定了抽样策略中的方法学问题，这些问题可能是研究结果不一致的部分原因。例如，招募的双语和单语群体之间的社会经济地位（SES）的差异可能会导致混淆的研究design.ConclusionsDimensions的双语语言配置文件中应考虑在临床实践中通知咨询和（重新）hurry策略，因为敏感性掩蔽升高，至少有一种语言，大多数双语。未来的研究应继续报告语言状态，能力和历史，但也应报告语言稳定性和使用数据的需求。此外，潜在的混淆（例如，在对单语者和双语者进行群体比较时，必须考虑SES，教育程度）。
PurposeTwenty years ago, von Hapsburg and Peña (2002) wrote a tutorial that reviewed the literature on speech audiometry and bilingualism and outlined valuable recommendations to increase the rigor of the evidence base. This review article returns to that seminal tutorial to reflect on how that advice was applied over the last 20 years and to provide updated recommendations for future inquiry.MethodWe conducted a focused review of the literature on masked-speech recognition for bilingual children and adults. First, we evaluated how studies published since 2002 described bilingual participants. Second, we reviewed the literature on native language masked-speech recognition. Third, we discussed theoretically motivated experimental work. Fourth, we outlined how recent research in bilingual speech recognition can be used to improve clinical practice.ResultsResearch conducted since 2002 commonly describes bilingual samples in terms of their language status, competency, and history. Bilingualism was not consistently associated with poor masked-speech recognition. For example, bilinguals who were exposed to English prior to age 7 years and who were dominant in English performed comparably to monolinguals for masked-sentence recognition tasks. To the best of our knowledge, there are no data to document the masked-speech recognition ability of these bilinguals in their other language compared to a second monolingual group, which is an important next step. Nonetheless, individual factors that commonly vary within bilingual populations were associated with masked-speech recognition and included language dominance, competency, and age of acquisition. We identified methodological issues in sampling strategies that could, in part, be responsible for inconsistent findings between studies. For instance, disparities in socioeconomic status (SES) between recruited bilingual and monolingual groups could cause confounding bias within the research design.ConclusionsDimensions of the bilingual linguistic profile should be considered in clinical practice to inform counseling and (re)habilitation strategies since susceptibility to masking is elevated in at least one language for most bilinguals. Future research should continue to report language status, competency, and history but should also report language stability and demand for use data. In addition, potential confounds (e.g., SES, educational attainment) when making group comparisons between monolinguals and bilinguals must be considered.