Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: A validation study

Byun, Tara McAllister; Halpin, Peter F.; Szeredi, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.11.003

Cited by 80 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To quantify the impact of cooling on speech quality for all recorded sound files, we used an online crowdsourcing approach adapted from a recently validated method (McAllister Byun et al, 2015), in which each vocalization was rated on a visual analog scale (VAS) (Munson et al, 2012) from 0 (‘Extremely degraded’) to 1 (‘Typical/Normal’). Each subject’s sound files were evaluated by 20.4 ±1.0 online participants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Segregation of Cortical Regions Underlying Speech Timing and Articulation

Long

Katlowitz

Svirsky

et al. 2016

Neuron

137

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Spoken language is a central part of our everyday lives, but the precise roles that individual cortical regions play in the production of speech are often poorly understood. To address this issue, we focally lowered the temperature of distinct cortical regions in awake neurosurgical patients, and we relate this perturbation to changes in produced speech sequences. Using this method, we confirm that speech is highly lateralized, with the vast majority of behavioral effects seen on the left hemisphere. We then use this approach to demonstrate a clear functional dissociation between nearby cortical speech sites. Focal cooling of pars triangularis/pars opercularis (Broca’s region) and the ventral portion of the precentral gyrus (speech motor cortex) resulted in the manipulation of speech timing and articulation, respectively. Our results support a class of models that have proposed distinct processing centers underlying motor sequencing and execution for speech.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Segregation of Cortical Regions Underlying Speech Timing and Articulation

Long

Katlowitz

Svirsky

et al. 2016

Neuron

137

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 2 reports individual percentages of items rated correct on this word probe, subdivided into vocalic and consonantal variants. Elsewhere in this paper, participants’ rhotic production accuracy will be estimated using perceptual ratings obtained from naïve listeners, who tend to be more lenient in their ratings of children’s rhotic sounds than trained experts (McAllister Byun et al, 2015). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous studies have reported that results obtained through AMT are comparable to those obtained in a lab-based setting (e.g., Paolacci et al, 2010; Sprouse, 2011; Crump et al, 2013). McAllister Byun et al (2015) investigated the validity of crowdsourced data collection in the specific context of ratings of children’s productions of rhotic sounds. They found that binary ratings aggregated over 250 naïve listeners on AMT were highly correlated with binary ratings aggregated over 25 expert listeners ( r = 0.92) and with an acoustic measure of rhoticity, F3-F2 distance ( r = -0.79).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current study, binary ratings of each speech token were collected from at least nine AMT listeners according to the protocol introduced in McAllister Byun et al (2015); see Appendix B for additional detail on this protocol. For the plots in this paper ( Figures 2 – 4 ), correct was averaged across all vocalic targets within a session and converted to a percentage, i.e., the percentage of “correct r” ratings out of the total number of ratings for all items in a session.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differential Effects of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Speech Errors

Byun

Campbell

2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence suggests that the incorporation of visual biofeedback technologies may enhance response to treatment in individuals with residual speech errors. However, there is a need for controlled research systematically comparing biofeedback versus non-biofeedback intervention approaches. This study implemented a single-subject experimental design with a crossover component to investigate the relative efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback and traditional articulatory treatment for residual rhotic errors. Eleven child/adolescent participants received ten sessions of visual-acoustic biofeedback and 10 sessions of traditional treatment, with the order of biofeedback and traditional phases counterbalanced across participants. Probe measures eliciting untreated rhotic words were administered in at least three sessions prior to the start of treatment (baseline), between the two treatment phases (midpoint), and after treatment ended (maintenance), as well as before and after each treatment session. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed by outside listeners in a blinded, randomized fashion. Results were analyzed using a combination of visual inspection of treatment trajectories, individual effect sizes, and logistic mixed-effects regression. Effect sizes and visual inspection revealed that participants could be divided into categories of strong responders (n = 4), mixed/moderate responders (n = 3), and non-responders (n = 4). Individual results did not reveal a reliable pattern of stronger performance in biofeedback versus traditional blocks, or vice versa. Moreover, biofeedback versus traditional treatment was not a significant predictor of accuracy in the logistic mixed-effects model examining all within-treatment word probes. However, the interaction between treatment condition and treatment order was significant: biofeedback was more effective than traditional treatment in the first phase of treatment, and traditional treatment was more effective than biofeedback in the second phase. This is consistent with existing theory and data suggesting that detailed knowledge of performance feedback is most effective in the early stages of motor learning. Further research is needed to confirm that an initial phase of biofeedback has a facilitative effect, and to determine the optimal duration of biofeedback treatment. In addition, there is a strong need for correlational studies to examine which individuals with residual speech errors are most likely to respond to treatment.

show abstract

“…Rhotics are distinguished acoustically from other sonorants by the low height of the third formant (F3), which closely approximates the second formant (F2). Both case studies (Shuster, Ruscello, & Smith, 1992;Shuster, Ruscello, & Toth, 1995) and single-subject experimental studies (McAllister Byun, 2017;McAllister Byun & Campbell, 2016;McAllister Byun, Halpin, & Szeredi, 2015;McAllister Byun & Hitchcock, 2012) have reported that visual-acoustic biofeedback featuring a lowered F3 target can improve rhotic production in speakers who have not responded to other forms of intervention. One caution that has been raised in previous studies of various types of biofeedback (e.g., Gibbon & Paterson, 2006;McAllister Byun & Hitchcock, 2012;Preston et al, 2014) is that gains made in the treatment setting do not automatically generalize to contexts in which enhanced feedback is not available.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Intervention for Residual Rhotic Errors Via App-Delivered Biofeedback: A Case Study

Byun

Campbell

Carey

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Recent research suggests that visual-acoustic biofeedback can be an effective treatment for residual speech errors, but adoption remains limited due to barriers including high cost and lack of familiarity with the technology. This case study reports results from the first participant to complete a course of visual-acoustic biofeedback using a not-for-profit iOS app, Speech Therapist's App for /r/ Treatment. Method App-based biofeedback treatment for rhotic misarticulation was provided in weekly 30-min sessions for 20 weeks. Within-treatment progress was documented using clinician perceptual ratings and acoustic measures. Generalization gains were assessed using acoustic measures of word probes elicited during baseline, treatment, and maintenance sessions. Results Both clinician ratings and acoustic measures indicated that the participant significantly improved her rhotic production accuracy in trials elicited during treatment sessions. However, these gains did not transfer to generalization probes. Conclusions This study provides a proof-of-concept demonstration that app-based biofeedback is a viable alternative to costlier dedicated systems. Generalization of gains to contexts without biofeedback remains a challenge that requires further study. App-delivered biofeedback could enable clinician–research partnerships that would strengthen the evidence base while providing enhanced treatment for children with residual rhotic errors. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5116318

show abstract

Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: A validation study

Cited by 80 publications

References 35 publications

Functional Segregation of Cortical Regions Underlying Speech Timing and Articulation

Functional Segregation of Cortical Regions Underlying Speech Timing and Articulation

Differential Effects of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Speech Errors

Enhancing Intervention for Residual Rhotic Errors Via App-Delivered Biofeedback: A Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About