Dyslexia and Perception of Indexical Features in Speech Dissertation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dyslexia and Perception of Indexical Features in Speech Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gaylene Patrice Beam Graduate Program in Speech and Hearing Science The Ohio State University 2019 Dissertation Committee Robert Fox, Advisor Rebecca McCauley Ewa Jacewicz Copyrighted by Gaylene Patrice Beam 2019 Abstract Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent written word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties are typically the result of a deficit in the phonological component of language. A variety of studies have pointed to an association of this impaired phonological processing ability with the perception of speech. This dissertation consists of three separate yet interrelated experiments designed to examine the roles that dyslexia and indexical features play in speech perception. The purpose of Experiment 1 was to determine whether the underlying phonological impairment seen in adults and children with dyslexia is associated with a deficit in the ability to categorize regional dialects. Our results confirmed our hypothesis that individuals with dyslexia would perform more poorly than average reading controls in regional dialect categorization tasks. In addition, we found that listeners’ phonological processing ability (in specific, phonological short-term memory) was associated with listeners’ sensitivity to dialect. Children performed more poorly than did adults. Children with dyslexia performed more poorly than did the child control group. Building on Experiment 1, Experiment 2 further inquired into sensitivity to indexical information (talker dialect and talker sex) in adults and children with dyslexia using stimuli that varied the nature and the redundancy of acoustic cues (namely, low-pass iii filtered speech and noise-vocoded speech). Our results supported our previous findings. Overall, listeners with dyslexia performed more poorly on categorization tasks than did controls. Children performed more poorly than adults in all conditions. We also found that for talker dialect identification, all listeners were most sensitive to dialect cues in clear speech, followed by vocoded speech. Listeners were least sensitive to dialect in low-pass filtered speech. For talker sex identification, listeners were again most sensitive to talker sex cues in the clear speech condition, yet for the degraded speech conditions the pattern was reversed. Listeners were more sensitive to talker sex cues in low-pass filtered speech than in the vocoded speech condition. Experiment 3 addressed the question of how adults with dyslexia differ from average- reading adults in their ability to categorize indexical information (talker dialect and talker sex) when speech samples are systematically degraded by noise-vocoding. Talker speech was presented in five stimulus conditions: unprocessed speech and four levels of noise- vocoding (16-channel, 12-channel, 8 channel, and 4-channel). We also examined the intelligibility of this systematically degraded speech for adults with dyslexia and average- reading adults. The results seen in the indexical cue sensitivity portion of this experiment did not support the findings of our first two experiments. Individuals with dyslexia did not demonstrate a decreased sensitivity to indexical features compared to controls. However, regarding speech intelligibility, our results did indicate that adults with dyslexia performed more poorly than controls in all stimuli conditions. In addition, all listeners demonstrated the native-dialect advantage, in that speech was more intelligible when talker and listener shared the same regional dialect. iv Dedication But if the while I think on thee, dear friend, All losses are restored, and sorrows end. William Shakespeare Dedicated to the memory of Christine Beattie, Ph.D. Her friendship, vitality, and courage continue to inspire me. v Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee. Dr. Robert Fox, my advisor, provided indispensible support and rigorous mentorship through every stage of my doctoral program. I will fondly remember our conversations on linguistics, Shakespeare, all things Appalachian, and the joy of a perfectly sharpened pencil. I am happy now to say that the many-headed Hydra lies slain at my feet. I would like to thank Dr. Rebecca McCauley for providing such interesting, well thought-out, and thought- provoking courses. Her wise counsel, the depth and breadth of her knowledge in the fields of speech-language pathology and linguistics, and her unwavering confidence in my ability to attain this degree have been invaluable. I appreciate Dr. Ewa Jacewicz for modeling true dedication to scientific research and an enthusiasm for learning and engaging in new areas of content in order to expand scientific knowledge. Despite her own busy research schedule, she always found the time to help when needed. I thank Dr. Dorothy Morrison for sharing her vast knowledge regarding the assessment and instruction of reading, her wisdom, and her determination to ensure that all children with reading disabilities, including those with dyslexia, have access to appropriate instruction. vii Vita 1984………………………………………….B.A. Humanities/Classics, Ohio Wesleyan University 1990…………………………………………M.A. Speech Language Pathology, The Ohio State University Publications Long, G. B., Fox, R. A., & Jacewicz, E. (2016). Dyslexia limits the ability to categorize talker dialect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 900-914. Fields of Study Major Field: Speech and Hearing Science viii Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Dedication ........................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vii Vita ................................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Background ...................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Phonological processing and dyslexia ...................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Phonological awareness ..................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Rapid automatic naming .................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Phonological memory ...................................................................................... 10 2.1.3.1 Phonological memory and sentence repetition ............................................. 12 2.1.3.2 Phonological memory and talker normalization processes in dyslexia ........ 13 2.2 Speech perception and dyslexia .............................................................................. 15 2.3 Indexical information .............................................................................................. 20 2.4. Research using degraded speech ............................................................................ 21 2.4.1. Band-pass filtering .......................................................................................... 22 2.4.2. Noise-vocoding ............................................................................................... 23 2.5 Speech Intelligibility ............................................................................................... 26 2.5.1 Speech intelligibility and dialect ...................................................................... 26 2.5.1.1 Speech intelligibility, dialect, and degraded speech ..................................... 27 2.5.2 Speech intelligibility and dyslexia ................................................................... 28 2.5.2.1 Speech intelligibility, dyslexia, and degraded speech .................................. 30 2.6 Current research questions ...................................................................................... 32 2.6.1 Experiment 1 .................................................................................................... 33 2.6.2 Experiment 2 .................................................................................................... 35 2.6.3 Experiment 3 .................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 3. Experiment 1 ................................................................................................... 37 3.1 Methods................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.1 Participants ....................................................................................................... 37 3.1.2 Stimulus materials