Waldstein R S, Boothroyd A
Center for Research in Speech and Hearing Sciences, Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, USA.
Ear Hear. 1995 Apr;16(2):198-208. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199504000-00007.
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 (F0) 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.
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.
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 improvements 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.
A small advantage was seen in favor of the tactile display of F0 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.
本研究旨在对两种编码不同类别语音信息的多通道振动触觉设备的有效性进行单受试者比较。一种设备是Portapitch，旨在传达基频（F0）及其随时间的变化。另一种是TACTAID 7，旨在传达前两个共振峰频率（F1和F2）及其随时间的变化。
该受试者是一名语后聋成年人，先使用Portapitch进行了为期17周的强化训练和测试方案，然后使用TACTAID 7完成了类似的17周方案。通过单独唇读、单独触觉设备以及唇读加触觉设备来获取语音对比感知的性能指标，同时通过单独唇读和唇读加触觉设备来获取开放集单词和句子识别的性能指标。
在语音对比测试中，受试者使用Portapitch表现出一定感知浊音、重音和语调对比的能力，但几乎没有证据表明使用TACTAID 7能感知语音对比。在开放集单词识别测试中，两种设备均未显示出显著改善。在开放集句子识别测试中，受试者使用Portapitch表现出显著的9个百分点的增强效果；TACTAID 7提供的平均5个百分点的增强效果无统计学意义。
在语音对比测试和开放集句子识别方面，相对于共振峰频率信息的触觉显示，F0的触觉显示有一个小优势。然而，这种差异的意义值得怀疑，并且可能与顺序效应混淆。尽管如此，受试者更喜欢触觉共振峰频率显示。
