The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition
Abstract
Percent recognition of phonemes and whole syllables, measured in both consonant–vowel–consonant (CVC) words and CVC nonsense syllables, is reported for normal young adults listening at four signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios. Similar data are reported for the recognition of words and whole sentences in three types of sentence: high predictability (HP) sentences, with both semantic and syntactic constraints; low predictability (LP) sentences, with primarily syntactic constraints; and zero predictability (ZP) sentences, with neither semantic nor syntactic constraints. The probability of recognition of speech units in context (pc) is shown to be related to the probability of recognition without context (pi) by the equation pc=1−(1−pi)k, where k is a constant. The factor k is interpreted as the amount by which the channels of statistically independent information are effectively multiplied when contextual constraints are added. Empirical values of k are approximately 1.3 and 2.7 for word and sentence context, respectively. In a second analysis, the probability of recognition of wholes (pw) is shown to be related to the probability of recognition of the constituent parts (pp) by the equation pw=pjp, where j represents the effective number of statistically independent parts within a whole. The empirically determined mean values of j for nonsense materials are not significantly different from the number of parts in a whole, as predicted by the underlying theory. In CVC words, the value of j is constant at approximately 2.5. In the four-word HP sentences, it falls from approximately 2.5 to approximately 1.6 as the inherent recognition probability for words falls from 100% to 0%, demonstrating an increasing tendency to perceive HP sentences either as wholes, or not at all, as S/N ratio deteriorates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review.
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.705006 · Cited by 809
Akeroyd, M. A. (2008) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992020802301142 · Cited by 688
Obleser, J., Wise, R. J. S., Alex Dresner, M., & Scott, S. K. (2007) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4663-06.2007 · Cited by 354
Grant, K. W., Walden, B. E., & Seitz, P. F. (1998) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.422788 · Cited by 342
Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners
van Wijngaarden, S. J., Steeneken, H. J. M., & Houtgast, T. (2002) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1456928 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Boothroyd, A., & Nittrouer, S.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1988-07-01
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101-114
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W1977768866
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.396976
- The paper
- Boothroyd, A., & Nittrouer, S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396976
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.