A Cross-Linguistic Validation of the Test for Rating Emotions in Speech: Acoustic Analyses of Emotional Sentences in English, German, and Hebrew

Carl, Micalle; Icht, Michal; Ben‐David, Boaz M.

doi:10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00205

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For full details on the procedure for stimuli selection, see Ben-David et al (2011b , 2013 , 2019) . A recent study from our lab has further shown that the discrete prosodic emotions are clearly distinct in acoustic characteristics (mean F0 and speech rate; Carl et al, 2022 ) in this set. The T-RES reliability was confirmed as data for young adult undergraduates were found to be equivalent across studies and platforms ( Ben-David et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 53%

Age-Related Changes in the Perception of Emotions in Speech: Assessing Thresholds of Prosody and Semantics Recognition in Noise for Young and Older Adults

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Older adults process emotions in speech differently than do young adults. However, it is unclear whether these age-related changes impact all speech channels to the same extent, and whether they originate from a sensory or a cognitive source. The current study adopted a psychophysical approach to directly compare young and older adults’ sensory thresholds for emotion recognition in two channels of spoken-emotions: prosody (tone) and semantics (words). A total of 29 young adults and 26 older adults listened to 50 spoken sentences presenting different combinations of emotions across prosody and semantics. They were asked to recognize the prosodic or semantic emotion, in separate tasks. Sentences were presented on the background of speech-spectrum noise ranging from SNR of −15 dB (difficult) to +5 dB (easy). Individual recognition thresholds were calculated (by fitting psychometric functions) separately for prosodic and semantic recognition. Results indicated that: (1). recognition thresholds were better for young over older adults, suggesting an age-related general decrease across channels; (2). recognition thresholds were better for prosody over semantics, suggesting a prosodic advantage; (3). importantly, the prosodic advantage in thresholds did not differ between age groups (thus a sensory source for age-related differences in spoken-emotions processing was not supported); and (4). larger failures of selective attention were found for older adults than for young adults, indicating that older adults experienced larger difficulties in inhibiting irrelevant information. Taken together, results do not support a sole sensory source, but rather an interplay of cognitive and sensory sources for age-related differences in spoken-emotions processing.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 53%

Age-Related Changes in the Perception of Emotions in Speech: Assessing Thresholds of Prosody and Semantics Recognition in Noise for Young and Older Adults

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used the Hebrew version of the T-RES. Content validity ( 47 ) has been confirmed by verifying that all sentences are distinctive and exemplars of their respective lexical categories [for method, see ( 45 )] and prosodic categories ( 46 ). The T-RES was also found to be valid and sensitive to detect population-related differences in various studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 1 presents the makeup of the T-RES stimuli: the 15 spoken sentences in each semantic category are represented once in each of the tested prosodies, generating a 4 (semantic) × 4 (prosody) matrix. For a full description of the characteristics of the spoken sentences and how they were constructed, see Ben-David et al ( 25 , 26 , 45 , 46 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of Spoken Emotions in Schizophrenia: Forensic and Non-forensic Patients Differ in Emotional Identification and Integration but Not in Selective Attention

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with schizophrenia (PwS) typically demonstrate deficits in visual processing of emotions. Less is known about auditory processing of spoken-emotions, as conveyed by the prosodic (tone) and semantics (words) channels. In a previous study, forensic PwS (who committed violent offenses) identified spoken-emotions and integrated the emotional information from both channels similarly to controls. However, their performance indicated larger failures of selective-attention, and lower discrimination between spoken-emotions, than controls. Given that forensic schizophrenia represents a special subgroup, the current study compared forensic and non-forensic PwS. Forty-five PwS listened to sentences conveying four basic emotions presented in semantic or prosodic channels, in different combinations. They were asked to rate how much they agreed that the sentences conveyed a predefined emotion, focusing on one channel or on the sentence as a whole. Their performance was compared to that of 21 forensic PwS (previous study). The two groups did not differ in selective-attention. However, better emotional identification and discrimination, as well as better channel integration were found for the forensic PwS. Results have several clinical implications: difficulties in spoken-emotions processing might not necessarily relate to schizophrenia; attentional deficits might not be a risk factor for aggression in schizophrenia; and forensic schizophrenia might have unique characteristics as related to spoken-emotions processing (motivation, stimulation).

show abstract

“…The test is composed of lists of ten meaningful, one-syllable consonant-vowel-consonant phonetically balanced Hebrew words (i.e., in each list, every consonant appears once, and every vowel appears twice) presented in 70 dB SPL. For CI participants, four lists of ten words were presented, two in each condition (quiet and noise), The data was adapted from Carl et al (2022), by personal correspondence and the participant was requested to repeat each word. NH participants were tested only in noise.…”

Section: Measures For Individual Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More Than Words: the Relative Roles of Prosody and Semantics in the Perception of Emotions in Spoken Language by Postlingual Cochlear Implant Users

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The processing of emotional speech calls for the perception and integration of semantic and prosodic cues. Although cochlear implants allow for significant auditory improvements, they are limited in the transmission of spectro-temporal fine-structure information that may not support the processing of voice pitch cues. The goal of the current study is to compare the performance of postlingual cochlear implant (CI) users and a matched control group on perception, selective attention, and integration of emotional semantics and prosody.Design: Fifteen CI users and 15 normal hearing (NH) peers (age range, 18-65 years) 1istened to spoken sentences composed of different combinations of four discrete emotions (anger, happiness, sadness, and neutrality) presented in prosodic and semantic channels-T-RES: Test for Rating Emotions in Speech. In three separate tasks, listeners were asked to attend to the sentence as a whole, thus integrating both speech channels (integration), or to focus on one channel only (rating of target emotion) and ignore the other (selective attention). Their task was to rate how much they agreed that the sentence conveyed each of the predefined emotions. In addition, all participants performed standard tests of speech perception. Results: When asked to focus on one channel, semantics or prosody, both groups rated emotions similarly with comparable levels of selective attention. When the task was called for channel integration, group differences were found. CI users appeared to use semantic emotional information more than did their NH peers. CI users assigned higher ratings than did their NH peers to sentences that did not present the target emotion, indicating some degree of confusion. In addition, for CI users, individual differences in speech comprehension over the phone and identification of intonation were significantly related to emotional semantic and prosodic ratings, respectively.Conclusions: CI users and NH controls did not differ in perception of prosodic and semantic emotions and in auditory selective attention. However, when the task called for integration of prosody and semantics, CI users overused the semantic information (as compared with NH). We suggest that as CI users adopt diverse cue weighting strategies with device experience, their weighting of prosody and semantics differs from those used by NH. Finally, CI users may benefit from rehabilitation strategies that strengthen perception of prosodic information to better understand emotional speech.

show abstract

A Cross-Linguistic Validation of the Test for Rating Emotions in Speech: Acoustic Analyses of Emotional Sentences in English, German, and Hebrew

Cited by 14 publications

References 31 publications

Age-Related Changes in the Perception of Emotions in Speech: Assessing Thresholds of Prosody and Semantics Recognition in Noise for Young and Older Adults

Age-Related Changes in the Perception of Emotions in Speech: Assessing Thresholds of Prosody and Semantics Recognition in Noise for Young and Older Adults

Processing of Spoken Emotions in Schizophrenia: Forensic and Non-forensic Patients Differ in Emotional Identification and Integration but Not in Selective Attention

More Than Words: the Relative Roles of Prosody and Semantics in the Perception of Emotions in Spoken Language by Postlingual Cochlear Implant Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About