Transcribing the Speech of Children With Cochlear Implants: Clinical Application of Narrow Phonetic Transcriptions

Abstract

Purpose-The phonological systems of children with cochlear implants may include segment inventories that contain both target and non-target speech sounds. These children may not consistently follow phonological rules of the target language. These issues present a challenge for the clinical speech-language pathologist who uses phonetic transcriptions to evaluate speech production skills and to develop a plan of care. The purposes of this tutorial are (1) to identify issues associated with phonetic transcriptions of the speech of children with cochlear implants and (2) to discuss implications for assessment.Method-Narrow transcription data from an ongoing, longitudinal research study were catalogued and reviewed. Study participants had at least 5 years of cochlear implant experience and used spoken American English as a primary means of communication. In this tutorial, selected phonetic symbols and phonetic phenomena are reviewed.Conclusions-A set of principles for phonetic transcriptions is proposed. Narrow phonetic transcriptions that include all segment possibilities in the International Phonetic Alphabet and extensions for disordered speech are needed to capture the subtleties of the speech of children with cochlear implants. Narrow transcriptions also may play a key role in planning treatment.

Factors Influencing Speech Production in Elementary and High School-Aged Cochlear Implant Users

“…Reductions in overall speech intelligibility in the presence of competing signals suggest the high levels of consonant accuracy determined by trained listeners in quiet conditions may be constrained by underestimating distortions, allophonic variations and the possible use of speech sounds in nonambient languages through the use of a PCC-R measure. Several previous reports detail instances where the speech of CI children is regarded as highly intelligible but also perceived as displaying a foreign accent (Gulati, 2003; Teoh & Chin, 2009). As Toeh and Chin recently noted, “small subtle speech errors are the most challenging to address in therapy” (p. 389, Teoh & Chin, 2009).…”

“…Several previous reports detail instances where the speech of CI children is regarded as highly intelligible but also perceived as displaying a foreign accent (Gulati, 2003; Teoh & Chin, 2009). As Toeh and Chin recently noted, “small subtle speech errors are the most challenging to address in therapy” (p. 389, Teoh & Chin, 2009). These small, subtle errors also are evident in the temporal characteristics of sentences produced by CI speakers.…”

Students’ views and experiences of the training and use of phonetic transcription in speech and language therapy – the Irish perspective

“…The choice of the type of phonetic transcription (systematic or impressionistic) and the level of detail in the representation of phonetic variation (broad vs. narrow transcription) depends on the client group and specific aims of the auditory analysis (e.g., Grunwell, 1987;Heselwood, 2013;Laver, 1994). While broad systematic (phonemic) transcription might be sufficient when dealing with phonological disorders in children, a more detailed narrow impressionistic transcription is often required to accurately reflect productions of individuals with cleft palate (Harding & Grunwell, 1996) or hearing impairment (Teoh & Chin, 2009) or of clients with diverse linguistic backgrounds (Ball, Müller, Rutter, & Klopfenstein, 2009;McLeod, et al, 2017). It is therefore essential that student SLTs receive appropriate training to acquire phonetic transcription skills and are able to confidently use them in the clinic.…”

Dynamic association between phonemic awareness and disordered speech recognition moderated by transcription training

“…The Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet (ExtIPA) for the transcription of disordered speech and voice quality enables transcribers to record distorted speech sounds in a more fine‐grained method, compared with phonemic transcription (or broad transcription) which designates allophones to the same phoneme without addressing every detail of speech (Ball et al., 2009). Therefore, phonetic transcription is especially useful in documenting the nuances and variations of an unfamiliar or atypical speech production, such as the speech sample of a language foreign to the transcriber (Lockart & McLeod, 2013) or disordered speech (Howard & Heselwood, 2002; Randolph, 2015; Teoh & Chin, 2009). In addition to its value in the assessment and analysis of speech‐sound disorders (Shriberg et al., 1997), narrow transcription may also be useful for the differential diagnosis of aphasia and apraxia of speech (Pernon et al., 2022), as well as for tracking clients’ progress during SLP intervention (Munson et al., 2012; Randolph, 2015).…”