Plant G
National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia.
Eur J Disord Commun. 1993;28(3):273-88. doi: 10.3109/13682829309060041.
Two audio recordings of ten adventitiously profoundly deaf Australian adults and ten age- and sex-matched controls reading a standard passage were played to a panel of ten normally hearing Swedish listeners. One recording consisted of the full speech signal. The second recording presented only the output from a Laryngograph. The listeners were asked to listen to each speaker and then judge whether he or she was adventitiously deafened or normally hearing. When listening to the full speech signal the listeners were able to identify correctly the speakers' hearing status on 92.5% of presentations. The identification rate fell to 65.6% when the listeners only heard the Laryngograph output. If a rating of adventitious deafness was made when listening to the full speech signal, the listeners were asked to state which aspects of the speaker's speech had led them to make this judgement. Of a total of 166 responses 33 related to overall voice quality, 59 to suprasegmental aspects and 74 to segmental aspects. The results of the study are discussed and compared to the literature.
十名澳大利亚后天严重失聪成年人以及十名年龄和性别匹配的对照组人员朗读一篇标准文章的两段音频录音，播放给由十名听力正常的瑞典听众组成的小组。一段录音包含完整的语音信号。另一段录音仅呈现咽喉描记器的输出。要求听众聆听每位说话者的声音，然后判断其是后天失聪还是听力正常。在聆听完整语音信号时，听众能够在92.5%的情况下正确识别说话者的听力状况。当听众仅听到咽喉描记器的输出时，识别率降至65.6%。如果在聆听完整语音信号时做出后天失聪的判断，会要求听众说明说话者语音的哪些方面导致他们做出这一判断。在总共166份回答中，33份与整体语音质量有关，59份与超音段方面有关，74份与音段方面有关。对研究结果进行了讨论并与文献进行了比较。
