Peculiarities of speech perception and intelligibility of students of medical educational institutions studying in Russian

The speech function is a human-only feature. It provides communication and serves as the main source of new information in the social environment, both in communication and in training, regardless of gender, age groups and the level of training of medical students. When perceiving speech for students studying in a non-native language, good intelligibility is important, which ensures a correct understanding of words, and therefore the completeness of the information received. Speech audiometry in noise using polysyllabic phrases in students studying in a foreign language can reveal an insufficiently complete understanding of a foreign language, as well as diagnose latent auditory disorders that have arisen against the background of diseases of the hearing organ. In Russia, М. Boboshko et al. developed and widely uses the Russian matrix test (RuMatrix) and there are prospects for using the matrix test in speech audiometry of medical students studying in a foreign language to identify the correct perception of addressed speech. However, ideas about the theories of perception and recognition of foreign speech are changing, it is believed that episodic memory and lexical organization of the cerebral cortex are involved in the process. To understand the level of use of not only sensory but also cognitive resources, it is necessary to assess the possibility of adaptation to the speech source in a natural environment (in noise), which is possible only with speech audiometry of sensitized speech using sentences.

1. Глухов ВП. Основы психолингвистики. М.: Астрель; 2005. 351 с. Режим доступа: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002725052.

2. Pervezentseva OA. Tasks of research of speech perception at the present stage. Fundamental Science. 2011;(2):310–317. (In Russ.) Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/zadachi-issledovaniya-vospriyatiya-rechina-sovremennom-etape.

3. Dubas C, Porter H, McCreery RW, Buss E, Leibold LJ. Speech-in-speech recognition in preschoolers. Int J Audiol. 2023;62(3):261–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2022.2035833.

4. Касевич ВБ. Семантика. Синтаксис. Морфология. Труды по языкознанию. В 2 т. СПб.: Филологический факультет СПбГУ; 2006. Т. 1. 664 с. Режим доступа: https://lib.tsu.ru/mminfo/2013/000232173/000232173.pdf.

5. Kletskaya SI. Why do people look for meaning in nonsense? (Kruchenykh and Chomsky as involuntary creators of meaning). Modern Science: Current Problems of Theory and Practice. Series: Humanities. 2021;(7):145–149. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37882/2223-2982.2021.07.15.

6. Риехакайнен ЕН. Восприятие русской речи: контекст + частотность. СПб.; 2016. 270 с. Режим доступа: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/2017-04-029-riehakaynen-e-n-vospriyatie-russkoy-rechi-kontekstchastotnost-spb-izd-vo-c-peterb-gos-un-ta-2016-270-s-lingvisticheskie.

7. Бондарко ЛВ. Фонетика современного русского языка. СПб.: СПбГУ; 1998. 275 с.

8. Vikulina MA. Listening and reading comprehension as objects of perceptivesemantic activity when forming students’ foreignlanguage intercultural competence. Language and Culture. 2017;(40):154–172. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/19996195/40/12.

9. Chugaeva TN, Shpak NE. Does the word really exist within the text: The issue of perceptual and articulatory language bases correlation. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2020;(4):159‒169. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22250/24107190_2020_6_4_159_169.

10. Ильнер АО. Развитие иноязычного речевого слуха в условиях учебного многоязычия. Екатеринбург: УрФУ; 2016. 136 c. Режим доступа: https://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/45625/1/978-5-321-02515-4_2016.pdf.

11. Шатилов АС. Психолингвистические проблемы устной коммуникации на родном и иностранном языках. СПб.: СПбГУ; Университет китайской культуры; 2004. 73 c. Режим доступа: https://revolution.allbest.ru/languages/01082746_0.html.

12. Endryushko АА. Theoretical approaches towards examining the adaptation of migrants to the host society: foreign practices. Vestnit Instituta Sotziologii. 2017;8(4):45–70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/vis.2017.23.4.480.

13. Eckman FR. From phonemic differences to constraint rankings. Stud Second Lang Acquis. 2004;26(4):513–549. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310404001X.

14. Best C, Tyler M. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In: Munro M, Bohn O (eds.). Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310404001X.

15. Чиршева ГН. Детский билингвизм: одновременное усвоение двух языков. СПб.: Златоуст; 2012. 70 c. Режим доступа: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294087521_Detskij_bilingvizm_odnovremennoe_usvoenie_dvuh_azykov.

16. Знаков ВВ. Психология понимания: проблемы и перспективы. М.: Изд-во «Институт психологии РАН»; 2005. 448 c. Режим доступа: https://istina.msu.ru/media/publications/book/0aa/9f8/8700000/Znakov_Psihologiya_ponimaniya.pdf.

17. Corder P. The significance of learner’s errors. Int Rev Appl Ling. 1967;(5):161–170. Available at: https://typeset.io/papers/the-significance-of-learner-serrors-4b2pxnhtyk.

18. Usacheva VM. The notion of speech error in Russian and foreign language pedagogy. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Education and Teaching. 2023;(3):93–98. (In Russ.) Available at: http://www.vestnik-mslu.ruVest/3_848_E.pdf.

19. Ermakova LM. On the corpus approach to studying errors in bilingualism. Bulletin of Perm University. 2012;(8):18–28. (In Russ.) Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-korpusnom-podhode-k-izucheniyuoshibok-pri-bilingvizme.

20. Зинченко ВП, Мещеряков БГ. Большой психологический словарь. М.; СПб.; 2008. Режим доступа: https://spbguga.ru/files/03-5-01-005.pdf?ysclid=m1se4s7iyw380280557.

21. Shastina GN. Speech perception in light of experimental-phonetic. Bulletin of the Humanities Faculty of Ivanovo State University of Chemical Technology. 2008;(3):302–306. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.isuct.ru/e-publ/vgf/2008/03/302.

22. Lobanov VA. Phonological hearing and features of perception of words of a non-native language. Bulletin of the Humanities Faculty of Ivanovo State University of Chemical Technology. 2016;(3):23–26. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.isuct.ru/e-publ/vgf/2008/03/285.

23. Ramkissoon I, Proctor A, Lansing CR, Bilger RC. Digit speech recognition thresholds (SRT) for non-native speakers of English. Am J Audiol. 2002;11(1):23–28. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2002/005).

24. Phillips I, Bieber RE, Dirks C, Grant KW, Brungart DS. Age Impacts Speechin-Noise Recognition Differently for Nonnative and Native Listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024;67(5):1602–1623. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00470.

25. Lollock L. The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: March 2000. Washington D.C: U.S. Census Bureau; 2001. Available at: https://cps.ipums.org/cps/resources/cpr/p20-534.pdf.

26. Ramkissoon I, Proctor А, Lansing С, Bilger R. Digit Speech Recognition Thresholds (SRT) for Non-Native Speakers of English. Am J Audiol. 2000;11(1):23–28. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2002/005).

27. Suatbayeva R, Janvakhu O, Taukeleva S, Toguzbayeva D. Modern aspects of speech audiometry (literature review). Vestnik Kazakhskogo Natsionalʹnogo Meditsinskogo Universiteta. 2020;(3):492–495. (In Russ.) Available at https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sovremennye-aspekty-rechevoy-audiometriiobzor-literatury.

28. Soli SD, Wong LLN. Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol. 2008;47(6):356–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020801895136.

29. Kuk F, Lau CC, Korhonen P, Crose B, Peeters H, Keenan D. Development of the ORCA nonsense syllable test. Ear Hear. 2010;31(6):779–795. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e97bfb.

30. Zokoll M, Wagener KC, Brand T, Buschermöhle M, Kollmeier B. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: the German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(9):697–707. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2012.690078.

31. Versfeld NJ, Daalder L, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107(3):1671–1684. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428451.

32. Ozimek E, Kutzner D, Sek A, Wicher A. Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(7):433–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1499202090272552110.

33. Nielsen JB, Dau T. The Danish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol. 2011;50(3):202–208. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2010.524254.

34. Brand T, Wagener KC. Characteristics, advantages, and limits of matrix tests. HNO. 2017;65(3):182–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0224-9.

35. Kollmeier B, Warzybok A, Hochmuth S, Zokoll MA, Uslar V, Brand T, Wagener KC. The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(Suppl. 2):3–16. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971.

36. Wardenga N, Batsoulis C, Wagener KC, Brand T, Lenarz T, Maier H. Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(Suppl. 2):71–79. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1079929.

37. Harianawala J, Galster J, Hornsby B. Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test. J Am Acad Audiol. 2019;30(4):315–326. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.17112.

38. Boboshko MIu, Zhilinskaya EV, Warzybok A, Mal’tseva NV, Zokoll M, Kollmeier B. The speech audiometry using the matrix sentence test. Vestnik Oto-Rino-Laringologii. 2016;81(5):40-44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/otorino201681540-44.

39. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95(2):1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408469.

40. Gilbert JL, Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Development, reliability, and validity of PRESTO: a new high-variability sentence recognition test. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013;24(1):26–36. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.1.4.