Although listeners can partially understand sentences interrupted by silence or noise, and their performance depends on the characteristics of the glimpses, few studies have examined effects of the types of segmental and subsegmental information on sentence intelligibility. Given the finding of twice better intelligibility from vowel-only glimpses than from consonants [Kewley-Port et al. (2007). “Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.122, 23652375], this study examined young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired (EHI) listeners’ intelligibility of interrupted sentences that preserved four different types of subsegmental cues (steady-states at centers or transitions at margins; vowel onset or offset transitions). Forty-two interrupted sentences from TIMIT were presented twice at 95dB SPL, first with 50% and second with 70% of sentence duration. Compared to high sentence intelligibility for uninterrupted sentences, interrupted sentences had significant decreases in performance for all listeners, with a larger decrease for EHI listeners. Scores for both groups were significantly better for 70% duration than for 50% but were not significantly different for the type of subsegmental information. Performance by EHI listeners was associated with their high-frequency hearing thresholds rather than with age. Together with previous results using segmental interruption, preservation of vowels in interrupted sentences provides greater benefit to sentence intelligibility compared to consonants or subsegmental cues.

1.
ANSI
(
1969
). “
American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Articulation Index
,” ANSI S3.5-1969,
American National Standards Institute
, New York, NY.
2.
ANSI
(
1996
). “
Specifications for audiometers
,” ANSI S3.6-1996,
American National Standards Institute
, New York, NY.
3.
Bergman
,
M.
(
1980
). “
Effects of physical aspects of the message
,” in
Aging and the Perception of Speech
(
University Park
,
Baltimore
), pp.
69
78
.
4.
Bergman
,
M.
,
Blumenfeld
,
V. G.
,
Cascardo
,
D.
,
Dash
,
B.
,
Levitt
,
H.
, and
Margulies
,
M. K.
(
1976
). “
Age-related decrement in hearing for speech: Sampling and longitudinal studies
,”
J. Gerontol.
31
,
533
538
.
5.
Cole
,
R. A.
,
Yan
,
Y. H.
,
Mak
,
B.
,
Fanty
,
M.
, and
Bailey
,
T.
(
1996
). “
The contribution of consonants versus vowels to word recognition influent speech
,” in
Proceedings of the ICASSP’96
, pp.
853
856
.
6.
Dorman
,
M. F.
,
Marton
,
K.
,
Hannley
,
M. T.
, and
Lindholm
,
J. M.
(
1985
). “
Phonetic identification by elderly normal and hearing-impaired listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
77
,
664
670
.
7.
Folstein
,
M. F.
,
Folstein
,
S. E.
, and
McHugh
,
P. R.
(
1975
). “
Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician
,”
J. Psychiatr. Res.
12
,
189
198
.
8.
Fox
,
R. A.
,
Wall
,
L. G.
, and
Gokcen
,
J.
(
1992
). “
Age-related differences in processing dynamic information to identify vowel quality
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
35
,
892
902
.
9.
Garofolo
,
J. S.
,
Lamel
,
L. F.
,
Fisher
,
W. M.
,
Fiscus
,
J. G.
,
Pallett
,
D. S.
, and
Dahlgren
,
N. L.
(
1990
). “
DARPA TIMIT acoustic-phonetic continuous speech corpus CDROM
,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, NTIS Order No. PB91–505065.
10.
Gordon-Salant
,
S.
(
2005
). “
Hearing loss and aging: New research findings and clinical implications
,”
J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. Clin. Suppl.
42
,
9
24
.
11.
Gordon-Salant
,
S.
, and
Fitzgibbons
,
P. J.
(
1993
). “
Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
6
,
1276
1285
.
12.
Gordon-Salant
,
S.
, and
Fitzgibbons
,
P. J.
(
2004
). “
Effects of stimulus and noise rate variability on speech perception by younger and older adults
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
115
,
1808
1817
.
13.
Humes
,
L. E.
(
2007
). “
The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults
,”
J. Am. Acad. Audiol
18
,
590
603
.
14.
Iyer
,
N.
,
Brungart
,
D. S.
, and
Simpson
,
B. D.
(
2007
). “
Effects of periodic masker interruption on the intelligibility of interrupted speech
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
122
,
1693
1701
.
15.
Jenkins
,
J. J.
,
Strange
,
W.
, and
Miranda
,
S.
(
1994
). “
Vowel identification in mixed-speaker silent-center syllables
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
95
,
1030
1043
.
16.
Kewley-Port
,
D.
,
Burkle
,
T. Z.
, and
Lee
,
J. H.
(
2007
). “
Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
122
,
2365
2375
.
17.
Kirikae
,
I.
,
Sato
,
T.
, and
Shitara
,
T.
(
1964
). “
A study of hearing in advanced age
,”
Laryngoscope
74
,
205
220
.
18.
Korsan-Bengtsen
,
M.
(
1973
). “
Distorted speech audiometry: A methodological and clinical study
,”
Acta Oto-Laryngol., Suppl.
310
,
1
75
.
19.
Li
,
N.
, and
Loizou
,
P. C.
(
2007
). “
Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
122
,
1165
1172
.
20.
Liberman
,
A. M.
,
Harris
,
K. S.
,
Hoffman
,
H. S.
, and
Griffith
,
B. C.
(
1957
). “
The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries
,”
J. Exp. Psychol.
54
,
358
368
.
21.
Miller
,
G. A.
, and
Licklider
,
J. C. R.
(
1950
). “
The intelligibility of interrupted speech
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
22
,
167
173
.
22.
Nelson
,
P. B.
, and
Jin
,
S. H.
(
2004
). “
Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
115
,
2286
2294
.
23.
Ohde
,
R. N.
, and
Abou-Khalil
,
R.
(
2001
). “
Age differences for stop-consonant and vowel perception in adults
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
110
,
2156
2166
.
24.
Peterson
,
G. E.
, and
Barney
,
H. L.
(
1952
). “
Control methods used in a study of the vowels
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
24
,
175
184
.
25.
Powers
,
G. L.
, and
Speaks
,
C.
(
1973
). “
Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
54
,
661
667
.
26.
Redford
,
M. A.
, and
Diehl
,
R. L.
(
1999
). “
The relative perceptual distinctiveness of initial and final consonants in CVC syllables
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
106
,
1555
1565
.
27.
Strange
,
W.
(
1989
). “
Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
85
,
2135
2153
.
28.
Strange
,
W.
, and
Bohn
,
O. S.
(
1998
). “
Dynamic specification of coarticulated German vowels: Perceptual and acoustical studies
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
104
,
488
504
.
29.
Strange
,
W.
,
Verbrugge
,
R. R.
,
Shankweiler
,
D. P.
, and
Edman
,
T. R.
(
1976
). “
Consonant environment specifies vowel identity
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
60
,
213
224
.
30.
Studebaker
,
G. A.
(
1985
). “
A ‘rationalized’ arcsine transform
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
28
,
455
462
.
31.
Warren
,
R. M.
(
1970
). “
Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds
,”
Science
23
,
392
393
.
32.
Wingfield
,
A.
,
McCoy
,
S. L.
,
Peelle
,
J. E.
,
Tun
,
P. A.
, and
Cox
,
L. C.
(
2006
). “
Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity
,”
J. Am. Acad. Audiol
17
,
487
497
.
33.
Wingfield
,
A.
,
Poon
,
L. W.
,
Lombardi
,
L.
, and
Lowe
,
D.
(
1985
). “
Speed of processing in normal aging: Effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time
,”
J. Gerontol.
40
,
579
585
.
You do not currently have access to this content.