Sophisticated and naïve listeners' magnitude estimation scaling judgments of speech intelligibility and speech annoyance.

15 women with formal training in speech and hearing sciences and 15 women with no formal training provided magnitude estimation scaling responses for the intelligibility and annoyance of audiotaped speech samples. Analysis indicated that both groups scaled intelligibility and annoyance the same. As samples became more unintelligible, they also became more annoying.

Magnitude estimation scaling judgments of speech intelligibility and speech acceptability.

20 female students in speech-language pathology provided magnitude estimation scaling responses for the speech intelligibility and acceptability of audio-taped speech samples varying systematically the number of consonant sounds produced correctly. Analysis indicated no significant over-all differences between listeners' judgments of intelligibility and acceptability; however, listeners tended to judge samples with fewer than 50% of the consonants correct as more acceptable than intelligible, and they judged samples with more than 50% consonants correct as less acceptable than intelligible.

Use of magnitude-estimation scaling for predicting hemispheric processing of lexical decisions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness and validity of magnitude-estimation scaling as an alternative to a traditional, somewhat more cumbersome reaction-time procedure in the assessment of hemispheric processing asymmetry. Lexical decision vocal reaction times and magnitude-estimation scaling values were obtained for 16 normal subjects to tachistoscopically presented concrete and abstract words. Analysis of variance showed identical interactions of field x stimuli for each dependent variable while all pair-wise correlations between these measures were significant. Magnitude-estimation scaling may be a sensitive measure of visual psychophysical differences in hemispheric processing and may circumvent problems with variance of latencies associated with disordered populations.

Effects of listeners' experience on two measures of intelligibility.

10 speech-language pathologists with extensive experience in judging speakers' intelligibility and 10 control subjects with no such previous experience provided written identification and magnitude-estimation scaling judgments of the intelligibility of nine audiotaped speech samples. Analysis indicated no significant main effect for experience on either the written identification or the magnitude-estimation scaling tasks. Implications for the continued use of magnitude-estimation scaling as a measure of speech intelligibility are discussed.

Magnitude-estimation scaling of speech intelligibility: effects of listeners' experience and semantic-syntactic context.

Fifteen speech-language pathologists with extensive experience judging speakers' intelligibility and 15 control subjects with no such previous experience provided magnitude-estimation responses for two sets of nine audiotaped speech samples. These samples were three utterances composed of a group of 17 words that contained all the consonant phonemes of English. These words were arranged to form a set of either meaningful or nonsense utterances. Nine separate versions of both the meaningful and nonsense utterances were created by systematically increasing the number of phonemes produced incorrectly on each of the nine recordings. The analysis indicated no significant difference between the magnitude-estimation scaling responses of experienced and inexperienced listeners. A significant over-all difference was found for listeners' responses to meaningful versus nonsense utterances. The advantages of magnitude-estimation scaling as a measure of speakers' intelligibility are discussed.