contribute to these individual differences. Specific to intelligibility and learning of the impairments associated with dysarthria, factors such as age, rhythm perception abilities, vocabulary knowledge, and working memory likely play a meaningful role in the individual variability observed (Bent, Baese‐Berk, Borrie, & McKee, 2016; Borrie, Lansford, & Barrett, 2017b; Lee, Sung, & Sim, 2014; McAuliffe, Gibson, Kerr, Anderson, & LaShell, 2013). A systematic approach to documenting how these and other listener parameters influence and interact with one another is needed. However, the current data suggest that individual differences should be given due consideration in the measurement and understanding of intelligibility impairment.
4.7 Summary
Speech intelligibility is a fundamental feature of spoken communication, involving the production of an acoustic signal by a speaker and the decoding of that signal by a listener. Intelligibility impairment is an issue across the lifespan, for a range of clinical populations that frequent the speech‐language pathologist’s caseload. For children, an understanding of developmental trajectories and the range of typical variability by age is critical for identifying those who have delays and disorders. As such, measurement of intelligibility is of essential import. However, as summarized in this chapter, such measurement is by no means a straightforward task. This is largely because intelligibility is not a unitary construct. It involves contributions from both the speaker and the listener, as well as the surrounding communicative environment. Additionally, while surprisingly understudied in the field of communication disorders, meaningful contributions to the construct of intelligibility likely arise from the dynamic, coordinative nature of spoken dialog, where production and perception are intricately and interdependently connected. Finally, to further complicate the measurement dilemma, these speaker, listener, and contextual contributions likely interact with one another in unique and variable ways. Thus, any measure of intelligibility must be viewed as an estimate, accounting for the speaker, listener, and context within which it was produced. While the task of an ecologically valid approach to capturing intelligibility is challenging, considerable progress has been made in the systematic study of large‐scale samples of both speakers and listeners for characterizing the many variables that contribute to intelligibility.
REFERENCES
1 Ansel, B. M., & Kent, R. D. (1992). Acoustic‐phonetic contrasts and intelligibility in the dysarthria associated with mixed cerebral palsy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 296–308.
2 Bent, T., Baese‐Berk, M., Borrie, S. A., & McKee, M. (2016). Individual differences in the perception of regional, nonnative, and disordered speech varieties. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(5), 3775–3786.
3 Binger, C., Ragsdale, J., & Bustos, A. (2016). Language sampling for preschoolers with severe speech impairments. American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology, 25(4), 493–507.
4 Borrie, S. A. (2015). Visual speech information: A help or hindrance in perceptual processing of dysarthric speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(3), 1473–1480.
5 Borrie, S. A., Barrett, T. S., Liss, J. M., & Berisha, V. (2020). Sync pending: Characterizing conversational entrainment in dysarthria using a multidimensional, clinically informed approach. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(1), 83–94.
6 Borrie, S. A., Barrett, T. S., Willi, M. M., & Berisha, V. (2019). Syncing up for a good conversation: A clinically meaningful methodology for capturing conversational entrainment in the speech domain. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(2), 283–296.
7 Borrie, S. A., Lansford, K. L., & Barrett, T. S. (2017a). Generalized adaptation to dysarthric speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(11), 3110–3117.
8 Borrie, S. A., Lansford, K. L., & Barrett, T. S. (2017b). Rhythm perception and its role in perception and learning of dysrhythmic speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(3), 561–570.
9 Borrie, S. A., Lansford, K. L., & Barrett, T. S. (2018). Understanding dysrhythmic speech: When rhythm does not matter and learning does not happen. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(5), EL379–EL385.
10 Borrie, S. A., Lubold, N., & Pon‐Barry, H. (2015). Disordered speech disrupts conversational entrainment: A study of acoustic‐prosodic entrainment and communicative success in populations with communication challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1187.
11 Borrie, S. A., McAuliffe, M. J., Liss, J. M., Kirk, C., O’Beirne, G. A., & Anderson, T. (2012). Familiarisation conditions and the mechanisms that underlie improved recognition of dysarthric speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 1039–1055.
12 Borrie, S. A., & Schäfer, M. C. (2015). The role of somatosensory information in speech perception: Imitation improves recognition of disordered speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(6), 1708–1716.
13 Chin, S. B., Tsai, P. L., & Gao, S. (2003). Connected speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology, 12, 440–451.
14 Coplan, J., & Gleason, J. R. (1988). Unclear speech: Recognition and significance of unintelligible speech in preschool children. Pediatrics, 82, 447–452.
15 Darley, F., Aronson, A., & Brown, J. (1969). Clusters of deviant speech dimensions in the dysarthrias. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 462–496.
16 DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke‐Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845.
17 Duffy, J. R. (2012). Motor speech disorders: Substrates, differential diagnosis, and management (3rd ed.). St Louis, MO: Elsevier.
18 Dykstra, A. D., Hakel, M. E., & Adams, S. G. (2007). Application of the ICF in reduced speech intelligibility in dysarthria [case reports]. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28(4), 301–311. doi:10.1055/s‐2007‐986527
19 Ertmer, D. J. (2010). Relationships between speech intelligibility and word articulation scores in children with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53(5), 1075–1086. doi:10.1044/1092‐4388(2010/09‐0250)
20 Flipsen, P. (2006). Measuring the intelligibility of conversational speech in children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20(4), 303–312.
21 Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London, UK: Academic Press.
22 Hodge, M., & Daniels, J. (2007). TOCS+ intelligibility measures. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.
23 Hodge, M., & Gotzke, C. L. (2014). Criterion‐related validity of the test of children's speech sentence intelligibility measure for children with cerebral palsy and dysarthria. International Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology, 16(4), 417–426. doi:10.3109/17549507.2014.930174
24 Hustad, K. C., & Cahill, M. A. (2003). Effects of presentation mode and repeated familiarization on intelligibility of dysarthric speech. American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology, 12, 198–208.
25 Hustad, K. C., Dardis, C. M., & McCourt, K. A. (2007). Effects of visual information on intelligibility of open and closed class words in predictable sentences produced by speakers with dysarthria. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 21(5), 353–367. doi:10.1080/02699200701259150
26 Hustad, K. C., Mahr, T., & Rathouz, P. J.
