Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:11:26.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of neighborhood density on children's word learning in noise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2018

Min Kyung HAN ,
Holly STORKEL  and
Daniel E. BONTEMPO
Min Kyung HAN*
Affiliation:
Indiana State University, USA
Holly STORKEL
Affiliation:
University of Kansas, USA
Daniel E. BONTEMPO
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Indiana State University, Department of Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology, 401 North 7th Street, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USA. E-mail: Min.Han@indstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies have addressed the effect of neighborhood density (phonological similarity among words) on word learning in quiet listening conditions. We explored how noise influences the effect of neighborhood density on children's word learning. One-hundred-and-two preschoolers learned nonwords varied in neighborhood density in one of four listening conditions: quiet, +15 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), +6 dB SNR, and 0 dB SNR. Results showed that a high-density advantage for children under quiet listening condition was significantly reduced as noise increased. This finding implies an adverse impact of noise on long-term outcomes of word learning.

Keywords

childrenword learningnoise
Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 153 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ASHA (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) (1997). Guidelines for audiologic screening, pp. IV-74a–IV-74i. Retrieved from <doi:10.1044/policy.GL1997-00199>..>Google Scholar
Bess, F. H. (1985). The minimally hearing-impaired child. Ear and Hearing, 6, 43–7.Google Scholar
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: implications for choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In Hiebert, E. H. & Kamil, M. L. (Eds), Teaching and learning vocabulary: bringing research to practice (pp. 223–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: a prerequisite for school learning. In Dickinson, D. K. & Neuman, S. B. (Eds.), The handbook of early literacy research (pp. 41–51). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Charles-Luce, J., & Luce, P. A. (1990). Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children's lexicons. Journal of Child Language, 17, 205–15.Google Scholar
Crandell, C., & Smaldino, J. (2000a). Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 362–70.Google Scholar
Crandell, C., & Smaldino, J. (2000b). Room acoustics for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment. In Valente, M., Roeser, R., & Hosford-Dunn, H. (Eds.), Audiology treatment (pp. 601–37). New York: Thieme Medical.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Elliot, L. L. (1979). Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 651–3.Google Scholar
Finitzo-Hieber, T., & Tillman, T. W. (1978). Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 440–58.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., Frankish, C. R., Pickering, S. J., & Peaker, S. (1999). Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 84–95.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501–18.Google Scholar
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-2. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Han, M. K., Storkel, H. L., Lee, J., & Cox, C. (2016). The effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on adults’ word learning in noisy conditions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25, 547–60.Google Scholar
Hoover, J. R., Storkel, H. L., & Hogan, T. P. (2010). A cross-sectional comparison of the effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 100–16.Google Scholar
Hygge, S., Boman, E., & Enmarker, I. (2003). The effects of road traffic noise and meaningful irrelevant speech on different memory systems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 13–21.Google Scholar
Jarvis, B. G. (2002). DirectRT Research Software (Version 2002). [Computer Software], New York, NY: Empirisoft. Retrieved from <http://www.empirisoft.com/directrt.aspx>..>Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 630–45.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36.Google Scholar
MathWorks (1992). MATLAB (Version 8.4). Natick, MA: Mathworks Inc. Retrieved from <https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html?s_tid=hp_products_matlab>..>Google Scholar
Merlo, J., Chaix, B., Ohlsson, H., Beckman, A., Johnell, K., Hjerpe, P., … Larsen, K. (2006). A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 290–7.Google Scholar
Nittrouer, S., & Boothroyd, A. (1990). Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2705–15.Google Scholar
Phatak, S. A., & Allen, J. B. (2007). Consonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 2312–26.Google Scholar
Phatak, S. A., Lovitt, A., & Allen, J. B. (2008). Consonant confusions in white noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 1220–33.Google Scholar
Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968). Channel-capacity, intelligibility, and immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 241–8.Google Scholar
Riley, K. G., & McGregor, K. K. (2012). Noise hampers children's expressive word learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 325–37.Google Scholar
Stelmachowicz, P. G., Hoover, B. M., Lewis, D. E., Kortekaas, R. W. L., & Pittman, A. L. (2000). The relation between stimulus context, speech audibility, and perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 902–14.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2004a). Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1454–68.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2004b). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 201–21.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2013). A corpus of consonant-vowel-consonant real words and nonwords: comparison of phonotactic probability, neighborhood density, and consonant age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1159–67.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., & Adlof, S. M. (2009). The effect of semantic set size on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 306–20.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., Armbrüster, J., & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1175–92.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., Bontempo, D. E., Aschenbrenner, A. J., Maekawa, J., & Lee, S.-Y. (2013). The effect of incremental changes in phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1689–700.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., Bontempo, D. E., & Pak, N. S. (2014). Online learning from input versus offline memory evolution in adult word learning: effects of neighborhood density and phonologically related practice. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 1708–21.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., & Lee, S.-Y. (2011). The independent effects of phonotactic probability and neighbourhood density on lexical acquisition by preschool children. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 191–211.Google Scholar
Taler, V., Aaron, G. P., Steinmetz, L. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Lexical neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition and production in healthy aging. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B, 551–60.Google Scholar
Wang, M. D., & Bilger, R. C. (1973). Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1248–66.Google Scholar
Williams, K. T. (2007). Expressive Vocabulary Test, 2nd ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.Google Scholar