The purpose of this study was to document the differences between the music Beethoven wrote while he had good hearing and the music he wrote while he was deaf, thereby showing that Beethoven used auditory feedback in transferring the concept in his mind to the manuscript notation on the page

Beethoven's deafness.

Two audio recordings of ten adventitiously profoundly deaf Australian adults and ten age- and sex-matched controls reading a standard passage were played to a panel of ten normally hearing Swedish listeners. One recording consisted of the full speech signal. The second recording presented only the output from a Laryngograph. The listeners were asked to listen to each speaker and then judge whether he or she was adventitiously deafened or normally hearing. When listening to the full speech signal the listeners were able to identify correctly the speakers' hearing status on 92.5% of presentations. The identification rate fell to 65.6% when the listeners only heard the Laryngograph output. If a rating of adventitious deafness was made when listening to the full speech signal, the listeners were asked to state which aspects of the speaker's speech had led them to make this judgement. Of a total of 166 responses 33 related to overall voice quality, 59 to suprasegmental aspects and 74 to segmental aspects. The results of the study are discussed and compared to the literature.



Un jury d'auditeurs suedois aux capacites auditives normales a ecoute deux enregistrements de dix adultes australiens atteints accidentellement de surdite profonde et d'un nombre egal de sujets de controle semblables par l'age et le sexe, qui tous ont lu un texte standard. L'un des enregistrements restituait le signal acoustique integral, tandis que le second presentait uniquement la production d'un laryngographe. L'on a demande aux auditeurs d'ecouter chaque locuteur ou locutrice et de juger chaque fois s'il y avait surdite accidentelle ou audition normale. Lors de l'ecoute des signaux acoustiques integraux les auditeurs ont ete en mesure d'identifier correctement l'etat auditif des locuteurs dans 92,5% des cas, mais le taux d'identification est tombe a 65,6% lorsqu'ils n'ont pu entendre que la production du laryngographe. L'on a aussi demande au membres du jury, chaque fois qu'ils diagnostiquaient une surdite accidentelle lors de l'audition des signaux integraux, de dire sur quels aspects du langage du locuteur ils avaient fonde leur jugement. Sur un total de 166 reponses, 33 se reportaient a la qualite de la voix, 59 a des aspects suprasegmentaux et 74 a des aspects segmentaux. Les resultats de l'etude font l'objet d'une discussion.



Zwei Audioaufzeichnungen eines Standardtextes, der von 10 fruhzeitig extrem schwerhorig gewordenen australischen Erwachsenen und von 10 nach Alter und Geschlecht gepaarten normalhorenden Kontrollsprechern gelesen worden war, wurden einer Gruppe von 10 normalhorenden Schweden vorgespielt. Eine Aufzeichnung bestand aus dem Sprachsignal die andere aus dem durch den Laryngographen gewonnenen Larynxsignal. Die Horer sollten beurteilen, ob der jeweilige Sprecher normalhorend oder fruhschwerhorig sei. Beim vollen Sprachsignal lag die richtige Zuordnung bei 92.5%; beim Laryngographensignal fiel sie auf 65.6%. Als Zweiturteil beim vollen Signal wurden die Horer gebeten, den Aspekt des Sprecherverhaltens zu benennen, der ihrer Zuordnung zugrundelag. Von 166 Urteilen konnten 33 zur globalen Stimmqualitat, 59 zu suprasegmentellen Eigenschaften und 74 zu segmentellen Eigenschaften in Beziehung gesetzt werden. Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung werden erortert.

The speech of adults with acquired profound hearing losses. I: A perceptual evaluation.

Hearing loss has a wide range of repercussions which are easily overlooked. Lipreading is surrounded by psychological issues, involving phenomenology, individual differences, and its interaction wi...

Psychology and hearing impairment: focussing on the people with the loss

A Response to Goehl and Kaufman (1984)

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

P. Stewart

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

A Response to Goehl and Kaufman (1984)