Research Article

# Influence of speaking style adaptations and semantic context on the time course of word recognition in quiet and in noise

a,b,*, Cynthia P. Blanco a,c, Rajka Smiljanic a
Suzanne V.H. van der Feest

<sup>a</sup>Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23rd Street B5100, Austin, TX 78712, USA
<sup>b</sup>Linguistics Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7407, New York, NY 10016, USA
<sup>c</sup>Duolingo, 5900 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA

article info

Article history:
Received 22 January 2018
Received in revised form 23 December 2018
Accepted 25 January 2019

Keywords:
Word recognition
Speech perception in noise
Clear Speech
Infant Directed Speech
Eye-tracking

abstract

This study examines the effects of different listener-oriented speaking styles and semantic contexts on online
spoken word recognition using eyetracking. In Experiment 1, different groups of listeners participated in a
word-identification-in-noise and in a pleasantness-rating task. Listeners heard sentences with high- versus lowpredictability semantic contexts produced in infant-directed speech, Clear Speech, and Conversational Speech.
Experiment 2 (in silence) and 3 (in noise) investigated the time course of visual fixations to target objects when
participants were listening to different speaking styles and contexts. Results from all experiments show that relative to conversational speech, both infant-directed speech and Clear Speech improved word recognition for highpredictability sentences, in quiet as well as in noise. This indicates that established advantages of infant-directed
speech for young listeners cannot be attributed only to affect; the acoustic enhancements in infant-directed speech
benefit adult speech processing as well. Furthermore, in silence (Experiment 2) lexical access was facilitated by
contextual cues even in conversational speech; but in noise (Experiment 3) listeners reliably focused the target
only when a combination of contextual cues and listener-adapted acoustic–phonetic cues were available.
These findings suggest that both semantic cues and listener-oriented acoustic enhancements are needed to
facilitate word recognition, especially in adverse listening conditions.

2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

## 1. Introduction

Understanding spoken language requires the conversion of
sound to meaning. During this process, listeners need to map
the quickly-evolving and variable speech stream onto the lexicon, where a number of viable candidate words are activated
and compete for selection (Gaskell & Marslen-Wilson, 2002;
Luce & Pisoni, 1998; Marslen-Wilson & Zwitserlood, 1989;
McClelland & Elman, 1986; McQueen, 2007; Norris, 1994).
Recognizing spoken words is even more challenging in noise
(Mattys, Brooks, & Cooke, 2009; Mattys, Davis, Bradlow, &
Scott, 2012), which can lead to reduced attentional and memory capacities and can result in word recognition failure
(Assmann & Summerfield, 2004; Pichora-Fuller, Schneider, &
Daneman, 1995; Rönnberg, Rudner, Foo, & Lunner, 2008).

The time course of lexical access is tied to the unfolding of
the speech signal; nonetheless, lexical activation and recognition can occur prior to the offset of the target word when words
are clearly enunciated (e.g. Allopenna, Magnuson, &
Tanenhaus, 1998; Grosjean, 1980; Marslen-Wilson, 1984;
see Dahan, 2010 for an overview). In the case of reduced conversational speech then, listeners often need to hear speech
following the target word offset for word identification to occur,
presumably to account for its hypo-articulated characteristics
(Bard, Shillcock, & Altmann, 1988; Bard, Sotillo, Kelly, &
Aylett, 2001). Noise can also alter the time course of spoken
word processing. Pre-offset identification is even less likely
to occur for spoken words presented in noise (Orfanidou,
Davis, Ford, & Marslen-Wilson, 2011), and more lexical competition was found from onset competitors in noise than in quiet
(Ben-David et al., 2010). In Brouwer and Bradlow (2015), listeners looked more to phonological competitors when presented with words in noise compared to words in quiet in a
visual-world task, and Hintz and Scharenborg (2016) found

* Corresponding author at: Linguistics Program, The Graduate Center, City University
of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7407, New York NY 10016, USA.

E-mail address: svanderfeest@gc.cuny.edu (S.V.H. van der Feest).

---

delayed fixations to targets and phonological competitors in
noise compared to in quiet. Furthermore, in noise listeners fixated the target picture less and showed fixations to phonological competitors for longer after hearing the target word. This
reveals a processing cost in noise even for words that were
identified correctly in the end. Results from these studies show
that the dynamics of spoken word recognition are affected by
speech clarity and by noise. However, no work to date tested
whether deliberate, listener-oriented speaking style modifications and semantic context modulate the time course of spoken word recognition.

The present study focuses on two such speaking style modifications: Clear Speech and Infant-Directed Speech (IDS). It is
well-documented that Clear Speech improves word recognition
in noise for a number of listener groups: adult listeners with
hearing impairment (e.g. Ferguson & Kewley-Port, 2002;
Picheny, Durlach, & Braida, 1985, 1986), children with
cochlear implants (Smiljanic & Sladen, 2013) and learning disabilities (Bradlow, Kraus, & Hayes, 2003), as well as nonnative listeners (Bradlow & Bent, 2002; Smiljanić & Bradlow,
2005). This Clear Speech processing benefit has been
extended to recognition memory for spoken sentences in quiet
and in noise (Gilbert, Chandrasekaran, & Smiljanic, 2014;
Keerstock & Smiljanic, 2018; Van Engen, Chandrasekaran, &
Smiljanic, 2012) and to reduced lexical competition (Van
Engen, 2017). Clear Speech typically involves speaking more
slowly and more loudly and producing more salient stop
releases, an expanded vowel space, greater pitch variation,
and increased energy in 1000–3000 Hz range of long-term
spectra (Ferguson & Kewley-Port, 2002; Maniwa, Jongman,
& Wade, 2009; Picheny, Durlach, & Braida, 1986; Smiljanić &
Bradlow, 2005; Smiljanic & Gilbert, 2017). Like Clear Speech,
IDS is also a listener-oriented speaking style, produced by talkers when they are addressing young children (e.g. Cristia,
2013; Johnson, Lahey, Ernestus, & Cutler, 2013). It has been
argued that IDS aids various aspects of social-emotional and
affective development in young children (e.g. Cristia, 2013;
Kaplan, Goldstein, Huckeby, & Panneton Cooper, 1995;
Werker & McLeod, 1989). There is also evidence that IDS facilitates overall language development (Fernald, 1984, 1989;
Kemler-Nelson, Hirsh-Pasek, Jusczyk, & Cassidy, 1989;
Kuhl, 2007; Soderstrom, 2007; Werker et al., 2007). Specifically, it has been argued that it facilitates the creation of perceptual sound categories (Cristia & Seidl, 2014; Kuhl et al.,
1997; Kuhl, 2007), sound discrimination (Liu, Kuhl, & Tsao,
2003), speech segmentation (e.g. Schreiner & Mani, 2017),
and word learning (Graf Estes & Hurley, 2013; Song,
Demuth, & Morgan, 2010). Many acoustic–phonetic adjustments described as typical of IDS are similar to those found
in Clear Speech. They include suprasegmental changes, such
as more frequent pauses, a wider pitch range, more prosodic
repetitions, and slower overall speaking rate (Cooper & Aslin,
1990, 1994; Cristia, 2013; Fernald & Mazzie, 1991; Knoll,
Scharrer, & Costall, 2009; Wang, Seidl, & Cristia, 2016;
Grieser & Kuhl, 1988; but see also Martin, Igarashi, Jincho,
& Mazuka, 2016, who argue the slower speaking rate may
be mostly attributed to shorter average utterance length). They
also include segmental modifications, like more pronounced
voicing contrasts, a stretching of the vowel space (the point

vowels, specifically), phonetic enhancement of sibilants as well
as the maintenance of the connected speech assimilation processes (Cristià, 2010; Englund, 2005; Kuhl et al., 1997;
Sundberg & Lacerda, 1999; Fish, García-Sierra, Ramírez-
Esparza, & Kuhl, 2017; Buckler, Goy, & Johnson, 2018).
Recently, a shift of vocal timbre in IDS has also been reported
(Piazza, Iordan, & Lew-Williams, 2017). A number of studies
have cast doubt on the contributions of these acousticarticulatory modifications to improved word learning or recognition in children (for an overview, see Golinkoff, Can,
Soderstrom, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2015; Soderstrom, 2007; Eaves,
Feldman, Griffiths, & Shafto, 2016). Specifically, it has been
argued that observed segmental changes in IDS may be unintended consequences of other properties of IDS, such as its
speaking rate and prosodic characteristics (e.g. Benders,
2013; McMurray, Kovack-Lesh, Goodwin, & McEchron,
2013). Despite these advancements in our understanding of
the characteristics of Clear Speech and IDS and the intelligibility gains associated with Clear Speech, very little is known
about how speaking style adaptations affect the time course
of spoken word recognition in quiet and in noise. The main goal
of this study was to test whether Clear Speech and IDS modulate the temporal dynamics of spoken word recognition, for
the first time comparing both to the “baseline” of conversational
speech in the same study. We predict that both speaking styles
will be beneficial for the listeners, but given that adults are not
the intended “target audience” for IDS, we may see a larger
benefit for Clear Speech for this group of listeners. However,
another possibility is that the specific affect and typical pitch
characteristics of IDS make this speaking style even more beneficial for a listener, regardless of whether that listener is considered part of the target audience.

The second goal of this paper was to examine how semantic context interacts with speaking style modifications in spoken word processing. In contexts like noisy environments,
where acoustic–phonetic cues are masked, listeners may rely
on higher-level linguistic structural and contextual information
(lexical, semantic, and syntactic) in order to recover from
losses at the perceptual level (Kalikow, Stevens, & Elliott,
1977; Miller, Heise, & Lichten, 1951; Nittrouer & Boothroyd,
1990). For example, McCoy et al. (2005) showed that adults
with poor hearing recalled significantly fewer of the non-final
words in word lists without semantic-contextual cues compared to word lists where target words were predictable from
the prior words. Previous work also showed that supportive
discourse information improves the recognition of reduced target words in spontaneous conversational speech (Bouwer,
Mitterer, & Huettig, 2013). In addition, there is evidence that listeners derive significant benefits from semantic context and
speech clarity (Clear Speech), and that these two cues are
mutually enhancing in their effects on speech recognition
(Bradlow & Alexander, 2007; Smiljanic & Sladen, 2013): Clear
Speech appears to be of greater benefit to listeners when
semantic context is also available. Combined, these studies
suggest that high-predictability contexts may increase the likelihood of successful identification of the target word by
decreasing the number of potential word candidates and thus
facilitating word recognition (Friederici, Steinhauer, & Frisch,
1999; Mattys, White, & Melhorn, 2005). Presence of contextual cues could also reduce the perceptual burden on listeners’ processing resources in noise and so aid recall and recognition
(McCoy et al., 2005; Van Engen et al., 2012). Here, we extend
this work by investigating the effect of sentential context in
combination with the speaking style adaptations on the time
course of spoken word recognition. If speaking style by itself
provides benefits to the listener regardless of context, the benefits of listener-oriented speaking styles should be uniform
across both high- and low-predictability contexts.

Finally, the third goal was to examine whether the acoustic–
phonetic characteristics of IDS as well as of Clear Speech aid
word recognition for young adult listeners in more challenging
listening conditions, namely in noise. While Clear Speech
improves word recognition in noise for both adults and children, it is not known whether the IDS acoustic–phonetic adjustments result in similar processing advantages for all listeners.
Several studies have considered similarities between IDS and
different types of listener-oriented speaking styles, such as
Lombard speech, foreigner-directed speech, and read speech
(Martin et al., 2014; Scarborough, Dmitrieva, Hall-Lew, Zhao, &
Brenier, 2007; Tang, Xu Rattanasone, Yuen, & Demuth, 2017).
The results revealed a number of similarities between these
speaking styles as well as a number of differences in, for
instance, vowel space, tone space, and pitch expansion.

Similar cross-style acoustic-articulatory enhancements
could thus lead to the similar processing benefit in noise. In
contrast, the studies emphasizing the positive affect of IDS
as crucial for infant attention and learning, while phonetic cues
are modified incidentally along with slower speaking rate and
different prosodic structure would predict IDS not to be beneficial for a non-target audience (e.g. McMurray et al., 2013). The
affect of IDS, which makes it attractive to young listeners, may
be a strong signal to adult listeners that they are not the target
audience for this speech, and this could make IDS less attractive or even annoying for adult listeners, and in this case the
prediction would be that it is less beneficial for word recognition
in noise.

In a series of three experiments, the current study examined
whether listener-oriented speaking style modifications and
contextual-semantic information facilitate spoken word processing in quiet and in noise for young adult listeners. In all
experiments, baseline conversational sentences were compared with Clear Speech and IDS sentences, and within each
speaking style sentences with low versus high semantic predictability were compared.

In Experiment 1a, we tested ‘offline’ word recognition in
which listeners heard conversational, Clear Speech, and IDS
sentences in high-predictability and low-predictability contexts
mixed with noise and then provided their written responses. In
Experiment 1b, listeners rated the pleasantness of the sentences across speaking styles and semantic contexts. This
was done in order to assess whether prosody and affect features of IDS, intended for children, are perceived as less attractive or less pleasant to adult listeners; if this was in fact the
case, these features could interfere with the perceptual benefit
of IDS in word recognition.

In Experiments 2 and 3, we tested ‘online’ spoken word
recognition in a ‘looking-while-listening’ task, in which listeners’
eye gaze is tracked continuously as they listen to speech and

see pictures of objects on a screen (e.g. Cooper, 1974;
McMurray, Clayards, Tanenhaus, & Aslin, 2008; Tanenhaus,
Magnuson, Dahan, & Chambers, 2000). Crucially, eye movements are closely related to the speech input and can reveal,
over time, which lexical candidate listeners believe the input
supports. This paradigm relies on the tendency of people to fixate a named image, even when not explicitly instructed to do
so (Fernald, Pinto, Swingley, Weinbergy, & McRoberts,
1998). In this way, subtle differences in the speed of word
recognition as a result of available contextual and acoustic–
phonetic cues can be compared. This will allow us to more closely investigate the time course of the facilitatory effects of
semantic context and speaking style on spoken word recognition in quiet (Experiment 2) and in noise (Experiment 3). The
examination of the locus of the speaking style and context processing benefit will provide a deeper understanding of the
mechanisms underlying spoken word recognition in challenging listening conditions.

## 2. Experiments 1a and 1b – Intelligibility and pleasantness

## 2.1. Method

## 2.1.1. Participants

Two groups of adult listeners were recruited from the
University of Texas at Austin Linguistics Department subject
pool. Eighteen listeners (9 female, age range 19–24 years)
participated in an intelligibility-in-noise task. Eighteen listeners
(13 female, age range 18–32 years) participated in a pleasantness rating task. All participants were native, monolingual
speakers of American English. All were undergraduate students at the University of Texas at Austin and received class
credit for their participation. All passed a pure-tone hearing
screening administered bilaterally at 25 dB hearing level at
500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.

## 2.1.2. Stimuli

Seventy-two sentences were recorded by a 27-year-old
female native speaker of American English. The sentences
were simple and short as they were developed specifically
for testing children’s ability to use contextual-semantic cues
in speech recognition in noise (Fallon, Trehub, & Schneider,
2002). In half (36) of the sentences the final word occurred in
a High Predictability semantic context (e.g. “Mice like to eat
cheese”), and in the other half the sentence-final word
occurred in a Low Predictability semantic context (e.g. “He
looked at the cheese”). In both sentence types, the final, monosyllabic word served as a target word to score participants’
accuracy of word recognition.

The recordings were made using a Shure SM10A headmounted microphone and a MOTU UltraLite-MK3 Hybrid recorder. The recordings were made in a sound-attenuated booth
over the course of two sessions. During the first session, the
talker read sentences that were displayed on PowerPoint
slides one at a time on a computer screen. First, all sentences
were recorded in a Conversational speaking style. For Conversational sentences, the talker was instructed to read in a
casual manner as if she was talking to someone familiar with
her voice and speech patterns. Next, all sentences were recorded in Clear Speech. For the Clear Speech sentences,
the talker was asked to read as if she was talking to a listener
with hearing loss or to a non-native speaker, since previous
studies have shown that listener-oriented Clear Speech can
be elicited successfully in this way in a laboratory setting
(Harnsberger, Wright, & Pisoni, 2008; Smiljanić & Bradlow,
2009). In the second recording session, the talker was
instructed to read the same sentences, but this time as if she
was talking to an infant. The PowerPoint slides with the target
sentences now also included stock photographs of infants. The
total set included 216 recorded sentences (36 High Predictability + 36 Low Predictability in each of three speaking styles:
Conversational, Clear Speech, and IDS). The recorded sentences were segmented into individual files and equalized for
RMS amplitude.

a. Intelligibility-in-noise. Each file was digitally mixed with
speech-shaped noise (SSN) at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
of 5 dB sound pressure level using Praat (Boersma &
Weenink, 2012), following previous studies by e.g. Smiljanić
and Bradlow (2005, 2008), Gilbert et al. (2014) and Mattys
et al. (2009). This noise level has been classified as
“moderate” in those previous studies, and was chosen to
ensure that listeners would not perform at ceiling in an ‘easy’
listening condition or at the floor with a more difficult SNR. This
was further verified by looking at the overall performance of our
first subjects, who were indeed performing in the expected
reported range for this noise level of 45–46% average
intelligibility in the baseline Conversational Speech in quiet.
Each stimulus file consisted of a 400 ms silent lead, followed
by 500 ms of noise before the onset of the target sentence,
and ended with 500 ms of noise after the offset of the target
sentence. Each listener heard 36 unique sentences counterbalanced for speaking style and semantic predictability: 18
High Predictability and 18 Low Predictability sentences, six
sentences in each of six blocks, and for each semantic predictability six sentences were presented in Conversational,
six in Clear Speech, and six in IDS. Each listener heard stimuli
in one of six presentation orders. Each block included six sentences from a single semantic context and speaking style (e.g.
sentences 1–6 were all High Predictability and all produced in
Conversational). Sentence order within each block was fixed.
The order of the blocks was pseudo-randomized across conditions to minimize order effects. Participants never heard the
same sentence twice. Each sentence was heard in all speaking styles and contexts across participants. The blocks may
have made the task slightly “easier” for the listener, but since
style and context changed every three sentences, whatever
expectations were formed changed quickly and would impact
1
all conditions equally.

b. Pleasantness ratings. A subset of sentences from each
style and semantic context was used to gauge whether young
adult listeners found different speaking styles more or less
pleasant. Participants heard a total of 60 sentences presented
in quiet: 10 High Predictability and 10 Low Predictability sen-

tences were presented in each of the three speaking styles
(Conversational, Clear Speech, and IDS), in blocks of 3 sentences with the same style/predictability, to match the setup
of Experiment 2 and 3 as explained below.

## 2.1.3. Acoustic analyses of stimuli

A series of acoustic analyses were performed to confirm
that the two listener-oriented speaking style adaptations (Clear
Speech and IDS) differed in acoustic-articulatory characteristics from the Conversational stimuli and from each other. In
order to perform the analyses, sentences were manually annotated using Praat textgrids (Boersma & Weenink, 2012). Praat
scripts were then run in order to obtain acoustic values automatically from the annotated sentences. The specific acoustic–phonetic features were: speaking rate (syllables per
second), energy in 1–3 kHz range (dB), and F0 range and
mean (Hz). We focused on these features, as they are typically
found in conversational-to-clear and adult-to-child-oriented
modifications (see e.g. Cristia, 2013; Smiljanić & Bradlow,
2009).

Speaking rate was calculated as the number of syllables
produced per second after the pauses were excluded. A pause
was defined as a period of silence of at least 100 ms in duration, excluding silent periods before word-initial stop consonants where it would be impossible to determine the end of a
pause and the beginning of the stop closure (see Smiljanić &
Bradlow, 2005). Energy in the 1–3 kHz range was measured
by averaging the long-term average spectrum energy between
1 and 3 kHz across each sentence. Pitch was measured as F0
mean and range (the difference between the highest and lowest F0 points in the sentence). Table 1 below summarizes the
acoustic characteristics of the stimuli.

The measurements illustrate that the three speaking
styles differed from each other as intended; Conversational
sentences (target word durations and speaking rate) were
faster than Clear Speech and IDS (Clear Speech and IDS
being similar); IDS showed higher energy levels than Clear
Speech (Clear Speech and Conversational being similar);
Conversational sentences showed the least pitch variability,
and IDS the most (i.e. for F0 range and mean,
Conversational < Clear < IDS).

## 2.1.4. Procedure

a. Intelligibility-in-noise. Participants sat at a computer monitor in a sound-attenuated booth in the UT SoundLab at the
University of Texas at Austin. The stimuli were presented over
Sennheiser HD570 or Sony MDR-CD780 headphones at a
comfortable listening level using EPrime (Schneider,
Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002). Listeners were instructed to
type out as much as they could of the sentence they had just
heard. After each trial, the participant pressed a button on
the keyboard to move onto the next trial. Each trial was presented only once, but participants could take as much time
as they wished to write down the sentences. In order to familiarize listeners with the task, they heard two practice sentences produced by a different talker and not used in the
test. Practice sentences were mixed with SSN at +2 dB SNR.

b. Pleasantness ratings. All participants were tested in the
same set-up in the same sound attenuated booth as in the
intelligibility-in-noise task. A computerized visual-analog scale

<sup>1</sup>Presenting the sentences in blocks of three made it possible to use this same design in
a follow up study with 3- and 4-year-olds; in addition to make the task slightly less “hard” by
not switching speaking style every sentence (or every other sentence), we wanted to
maximize the chances of getting a data point for each participant, for each sentence type
with young children who in this type of task typically have less focused looking behavior,
and a typically higher number of lost trials per participant.

---

Table 1
Acoustic characteristics of the auditory stimuli recorded in Conversational Speech (Conv), Clear Speech (CS), and Infant-Directed Speech (IDS), in High Predictability (HP) versus Low
Predictability (LP) sentences (Average target word duration in ms. with standard deviations; speaking rate in syllables per second; Root Mean Square for slopes; mean energy in the 1–
3 kHz rang; F0 range and mean).

|  | Target word duration,ms.(SD) | Speaking rate(syllables/sec) | RMS for slope | Mean energy,dB1-3kHz(SD) | F0 range,mean(min-max) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conv-LP | 430(0.08) | 5.99 | 9.70 | 19.54(3.6) | 116.3,164.9(125-241) |
| Conv-HP | 410(0.10) | 5.58 | 9.34 | 21.39(3.5) | 104.6,161.8(122-227) |
| CS-LP | 570(0.08) | 3.30 | 9.05 | 20.16(3.1) | 178.6,165.9(128-306) |
| CS-HP | 610(0.09) | 2.75 | 9.55 | 21.20(3.0) | 162.2,164.1(108-270) |
| IDS-LP | 670(0.10) | 3.32 | 10.29 | 26.1(2.3) | 253.1,225.4(135-388) |
| IDS-HP | 740(0.10) | 2.67 | 10.11 | 27.8(2.3) | 246,223.5(123-370) |

(VAS) was presented with EPrime, and listeners judged the
pleasantness of each sentence by clicking anywhere on a horizontal line presented in the middle of the screen. The line was
labeled “most pleasant” on the right endpoint (higher scores)
and “least pleasant” on the left endpoint (lower scores). The
line was not labeled at any other intermediate point and no line
divisions were visible. Each listener rated all 60 sentences.
The order of sentences was randomized for each listener,
and listeners heard each sentence only once. Three practice
sentences were included at the beginning to familiarize listeners with the task. For each sentence, the click location in pixels
was logged.

## 2.2. Results and discussion

## 2.2.1. Experiment 1a – Intelligibility-in-noise

We adopted a strict scoring criterion. A keyword was
counted as correct only if all morphemes of the target word
were present and transcribed correctly, e.g. if the target word
was “keeping,”“keep, keeps, or kept” were scored as incorrect.
Obvious alternate homophone spellings were counted as correct (e.g. their for there). Since the target words were very frequent short words, orthographic mistakes were virtually nonexistent.

All statistical analyses reported in this paper were conducted using R (version 3.3.0; R Core Team, 2016) and RStudio (1.0.136; RStudio Team, 2016), and the packages lme4
(Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015) and lmerTest
(Kuznetsova, Brockhoff, & Christensen, 2016). A mixedeffects logistic regression model (Baayen, Davidson, &
Bates, 2008) was fit to the data from the intelligibility-in-noise
task to model the accuracy of listeners’ transcription of the final
target word of each sentence (1 = correct, 0 = incorrect).
Speaking style (Conversational, Clear Speech, IDS) and sentence context (High Predictability, Low Predictability) were
entered as fixed effects, and participant and target word were
included as random intercepts. Results are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Increasingly complex nested models were compared via
ANOVAs to determine the simplest model that best fit the data.
The best-fitting model revealed significant main effects of
speaking style and sentence context (both ps < 0.001), and a
significant interaction between the two (p < 0.001). Pairwise
comparisons were made by releveling the model with the six
different possible conditions as the intercept. (Note that with
the current sample size, the models did not converge with
the addition of random slopes.) There was a greater likelihood
of accurate transcription for IDS than for Clear Speech or Conversational (IDS vs. CS: b = 0.98, z(640) = 1.946, p = 0.05;

$$
B=-0.98,2(040)=-1.948,D=0.05,
$$

Fig. 1. Percentage correct keyword identification, with whiskers from 1.5 times the interquartile range below and above the first and third quartiles, respectively, for Conversational Speech (Conv), Clear Speech (CS), and Infant-Directed Speech (IDS). Dots
represent outliers. Data for the Low Predictability Context sentences are in the left panel
and data for the High Predictability Context sentences are in the right panel.

IDS vs. Conv: b = 4.56, z(640) = 8.632, p < 0.001), for
Clear Speech than for Conversational (b = 3.58, z(640)
= 8.113, p < 0.001), and for High Predictability than for Low
Predictability sentences (b = 2.01, z(640) = 4.950,
2
p < 0.001). For the interaction of these factors, there was no difference in likelihood of accurate transcription between High Predictability and Low Predictability contexts for Conversational
(p > 0.05), but listeners benefited from High Predictability context over Low Predictability when more exaggerated acoustic
cues were present, i.e., in the two listener-oriented speaking
styles (Clear Speech: b = 2.01, z(640) = 4.950, p < 0.001;
IDS: b = 2.31, z(640) = 4.752, p < 0.001). See Table 2 for
model summary. Results showed that listeners used speaking
style modifications and sentence context in combination to
enhance their word recognition in noise. Interestingly, there
was a marginally significant effect indicating that young adult listeners found IDS acoustic–phonetic adjustments to be even
more beneficial for word recognition in noise than Clear Speech.

$$
\beta=-4.56,\,\,\,z(640)=-8.632,\,\,\,p<0.001)
$$

$$
=-8.113,\,p\!<\!0.001)
$$

## 2.2.2. Experiment 1b – Pleasantness ratings

A mixed-effects linear regression model was fit to the pleasantness ratings to model listeners’ perceived pleasantness of

<sup>2</sup>Due to the structure of the regression models uses here, the estimates reported here
for the speaking style differences are the estimates for the high probability sentences, and
the estimates reported for the probability contexts are for the CS sentences. The direction
and magnitude of effects are representative of the combined class (e.g., representative of
both HP and LP, even though the in-text estimate is for HP sentences).

---

Table 2
Experiment 1a: Summary of model fitting transcription accuracy. Intercept represents log
odds of accurately transcribing target words in high predictability sentences in Clear
Speech (CS).

|  | Estimate | Std. Error | z value | p value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept(CS,HP) | 2.2965 | 0.4470 | 5.137 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP | -2.0103 | 0.4061 | -4.950 | &lt;0.001 |
| Conv | -3.5756 | 0.4407 | -8.113 | &lt;0.001 |
| IDS | 0.9799 | 0.5036 | 1.946 | 0.05167 |
| LP*Conv | 1.9790 | 0.5404 | 3.662 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP*IDS | -0.2954 | 0.6081 | -0.486 | 0.62713 |

Random effects:

|  | Variance | Std. Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Word | 2.8192 | 1.6790 |
| Participant | 0.2239 | 0.4731 |

the different speaking styles and sentence types. Pleasantness ratings were converted to z-scores to account for differences in how raters use the available continuum, so a score
of 0 indicates speech rated as neither particularly pleasant
nor as particularly unpleasant, positive scores indicate more
pleasant speech, and negative scores indicate less pleasant
speech. Speaking style (Conversational, Clear Speech, IDS)
and sentence context (High Predictability, Low Predictability)
were tested as fixed effects, and sentence was included as a
random intercept. The results are illustrated in Fig. 2.

As in Experiment 1a, models were tested against each
other using ANOVA, and the referent (intercept) of the best fitting model was releveled for pairwise comparisons. A model
with an interaction between speaking style and sentence context and with sentence as a random intercept provided a significantly improved fit to the data compared to a model without
the interaction term (v² = 18.384, df = 2, p < 0.001); see Table 3
for the model summary. IDS and Conversational were not rated
as significantly different from 0 (neutral) in either Low
Predictability or High Predictability semantic contexts (all
p ns > 0.05). In contrast, both Low Predictability and High Predictability sentences in Clear Speech were significantly different from 0. In Low Predictability contexts, Clear Speech was
rated as significantly more pleasant (b = 0.30, t(1074) =
4.062, p < 0.001) while in High Predictability contexts, Clear
Speech was rated as significantly less pleasant (b = 0.20,
t(1074) = 2.759, p < 0.01).

$$
(\chi^{2}=18.384
$$

$$
(\beta=0.30
$$

$$
p\mathsf{n s}>0.05)
$$

$$
p<0.001)
$$

$$
((1074)=-2.759,p<0.01)
$$

The apparent neutral pleasantness ratings of IDS to adult
listeners may be due in part to large differences across how listeners rated the pleasantness of IDS. By examining the distribution of raw scores for each sentence type, we see that most
listeners rated Conversational and Clear Speech near the center of the scale, near neutral pleasantness (see Appendix A). In
contrast, the ratings for IDS sentences were more distributed
across the scale. This difference in the distribution of ratings
across sentence types can be captured in the kurtosis of each
distribution, which measures how much of the data is found in
the tails of a distribution. Distributions with negative excess
kurtosis values indicate more data in the tails than are found
in the normal distribution, and distributions with negative values have as much data in the tails as the peak of the distribution (DeCarlo, 1997). While the kurtosis values for all six

Fig. 2. Average z-transformed pleasantness ratings, with standard errors, for Conversational Speech (Conv), Clear Speech (CS), and Infant-Directed Speech (IDS). Dots
represent outliers. Data from Low Predictability (LP) context sentences are in the left
panel and data from High Predictability (HP) context sentences are in the right panel.

Table 3
Experiment 1b: Summary of model fitting z-transformed pleasantness ratings. Intercept
represents z-transformed rating for high predictability sentences in Clear Speech (CS).

|  | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | p value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept(CS,HP) | -0.20196 | 0.07319 | -2.759 | &lt;0.01 |
| LP | 0.49927 | 0.10351 | 4.823 | &lt;0.001 |
| Conv | 0.16579 | 0.10351 | 1.602 | 0.1095 |
| IDS | 0.24991 | 0.10351 | 2.414 | &lt;0.05 |
| LP*Conv | -0.57863 | 0.14639 | -3.953 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP*IDS | -0.53884 | 0.14639 | -3.681 | &lt;0.001 |

Random effects:

|  | Variance | Std. Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sentence | $1.3\times 10^{-14}$ | 0.0000001 |
| Residual | 0.9643 | 0.9820 |

$$
1.3\times10^{-14}
$$

$$
0.9643
$$

sentence types are negative (the tails have more data than
would occur in a normal distribution), the IDS kurtosis scores
are much more negative than the scores for the other styles
(see Table 4). These more widely distributed ratings show that
young adult listeners were less consistent in their ratings of
IDS sentences, regardless of semantic context, than for the
other adult-oriented speaking styles.

Combined results of Experiments 1a and 1b have established that acoustic–phonetic enhancements of both Clear
Speech and IDS along with semantic enhancements contributed significantly to the improved word recognition in noise
for young adults and that this benefit did not arise from the listeners’ preference of Clear Speech over IDS, as seen in the
pleasantness ratings. Furthermore, the direct comparison of
the two listener-oriented speaking styles revealed a larger
intelligibility benefit of IDS compared to Clear Speech, suggesting that the acoustic-articulatory modifications aimed at
two different listener groups led to different intelligibility gain
for the listeners. Next, we examine the time course of word
recognition for the three speaking styles and two semantic
contexts using an online word-recognition task (e.g. Fernald
et al., 1998; Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, Cauley, & Gordon, 1987).

---

Table 4
Kurtosis of the distribution of responses to each sentence
type.

|  | Kurtosis |
| --- | --- |
| Conv, HP | -0.52 |
| Conv, LP | -0.41 |
| CS, HP | -0.43 |
| CS, LP | -0.44 |
| IDS, HP | -1.13 |
| IDS, LP | -1.18 |

## 3. Experiment 2 – Online word recognition in quiet

## 3.1. Method

## 3.1.1. Participants

Thirty-six adult native, monolingual speakers of American
English (22 female, age range 19–25 years) participated in
Experiment 2. All participants were undergraduate students
at the University of Texas at Austin and received class credit
for their participation. They were different individuals than in
Experiment 1. All passed a pure-tone hearing screening,
administered bilaterally at 25 dB HL at 500, 1000, 2000, and
4000 Hz.

## 3.1.2. Stimuli

The auditory stimuli consisted of a subset of 36 sentences
from Experiment 1, including the same 18 unique sentencefinal words in both High Predictability and Low Predictability
sentences. Sentences were selected for having sentencefinal target words that were easily depictable objects (i.e., targets such as ball were selected rather than targets such as
snow). All selected sentences had target words that were
monosyllabic; most had a CVC structure (e.g. bed, n = 13),
four targets had a word-final consonant cluster (corn, fork,
pants, horse), one had a CV structure (bee), and one had a
CCV structure (tree). These design restrictions were implemented to ensure that this paradigm can be used with young
children (Van der Feest, Blanco, & Smiljanic, 2016).

The visual stimuli consisted of photographs of the target
objects, which were edited to be similar in size and brightness.
The objects measured about 6–7 inches on the screen, and
were presented on a 27-inch screen. Target object pictures
appeared in pairs, side-by-side on the screen, and separated
by about 8–9 inches. As much as possible, objects were paired
based on basic semantic properties (e.g. animate objects were
paired with other animate objects, a bus was paired with a car).

Each participant was presented with 18 unique sentences
(with 18 different target words) evenly divided between High
Predictability and Low Predictability sentences. For each
semantic context (Low Predictability and High Predictability),
three sentences each were presented in Conversational, Clear
Speech, and IDS styles. Sentences were always presented in
blocks of three with the same semantic context and speaking
style combination (e.g. High Predictability Conversational)
within each block. The subset of sentences was counterbalanced across subjects for speaking style and semantic predictability, resulting in six different test orders (see Appendix
C). Each sentence was heard in all speaking styles and contexts across the different orders. The order of the semantic

context and speaking style combination blocks was counterbalanced across the six conditions. Participants were presented with each sentence twice over the course of the
experiment, for a total of 36 trials per participant. The order
of the semantic context and speaking style blocks was the
same in the first and the second half of each condition, but
the order of the sentences within each block was different in
the first versus the second half of the test.

## 3.1.3. Procedure

All participants were tested in a sound-proof booth in the
Perception, Production and Processing lab at the University
of Texas at Austin Speech and Hearing Center. Participants
sat in front of a 27-inch iMac monitor. The pre-recorded audio
was played over external speakers, and a remote-controlled
video camera (Sony EVI-D100) located directly below the
screen recorded the participants’ faces. Participants were
instructed to just watch the video, and the experimenter explicitly stated that there were no hidden tasks.

Each trial consisted of a 2-s lead where the pictures were
presented on the screen in silence, followed by the target sentence, and ending again with the pictures presented in silence
so that each trial was exactly 5.5 s in duration. The side on
which the labeled target object appeared was counterbalanced
across the different test orders, such that each target object
appeared in on the left in three orders and on the right in three
orders. The same two objects always appeared together in all
conditions, alternating which object was the named target on a
particular trial within each order. After each trial, a white flashing star on a black background appeared, to direct participants’
eye gaze towards the center of the screen between trials. After
every nine trials, short animations were played (of a duck
bouncing, a fish swimming, or a bird flying across the screen).
The duck, fish, and bird were not named (cf. Van der Feest &
Johnson, 2016).

## 3.1.4. Coding and analyses

Participants’ eye movements were coded off-line by trained
coders who analyzed the silenced video using the SuperCoder
program (Hollich, 2005). Eye movements were coded for each
33.3 ms frame (30 frames/second): the coders indicated
whether the participant was looking at the left picture, at the
right picture, or was shifting between pictures or looking away
from the screen. The beginning and end of each trial was
clearly indicated on the video by a change in background light
(between the white background behind the target objects and
the dark background behind the blinking star and the short animations). The coder was blind to target side and test order.
Coder reliability was determined by comparing the decisions
of two different coders for twenty percent of the total dataset.
The mean agreement between coders was 97%.

Following previous studies (e.g. Fernald et al., 1998;
Swingley & Aslin, 2000), we assessed fixations to the target
object (versus the distractor object) for each 33.3 ms frame
of each trial. We first assessed target word recognition and
checked for inherent preferences of target objects by calculating the proportion of the total looking time to the screen on
which participants fixated the target object, for the first second
of each trial as well as for the first second starting at target
word onset. Next, we analyzed fixations to the target object over time during the one-second window of analysis starting at
target word onset. While planning an eye-movement in
response to an auditory stimulus is estimated to take perhaps
as little as 100 ms for adults (Altmann, 2011) and up to 365 ms
in young children (e.g. Fernald et al., 1998; Johnson,
McQueen, & Huettig, 2011; Swingley, 2009), here we measure
fixations from target word onset because in the High Predictability sentences, participants arguably already had
enough information before the target word onset to predict
the sentence-final target word. Thirteen trials (about 2% of all
trials across all subjects) were excluded because the participants were briefly distracted and did not look at the screen
(e.g. because of sneezing, briefly changing their exact position
in their chair, or prolonged blinks).

## 3.2. Results and discussion

Two-tailed t-tests were conducted to compare looks to
chance or 50%; looks to the target ‘before’ (during the first second of each trial) were at chance level for all six sentence
types, illustrating that no inherent biases or picture preferences
were found (Conversational–Low Predictability t(35) = 0.5,
p = n.s.; Conversational-High Predictability t(35) = 0.4,
p = n.s.; Clear-Low Predictability t(35) = 0.2, p = n.s.; Clear-
High Predictability t(35) = 0.2, p = n.s.; IDS-Low Predictability
t(35) = 1.7, p = n.s.; IDS-High Predictability t(35) = 1.1, p =n.
s.). Looks to the target ‘after’ (during a one-second window
beginning at target word onset) were all significantly different
from 0, indicating the target words in silence were always
recognized (as expected). (Conversational-Low Predictability
t(35) = 11.3, p < 0.0001; Conversational–High Predictability
t(35) = 13.3, p < 0.0001; Clear-Low Predictability t(35) = 8.9,
p < 0.0001; Clear-High Predictability t(35) = 11.3, p < 0.0001;
IDS-Low Predictability t(35) = 5.9, p < 0.0001; IDS-High
Predictability t(35) = 10.5, p < 0.0001).

Proportions of target object fixations are illustrated for each
of the different trial types before and after target word onset in
Fig. 3.

Next, we conducted two-tailed t-tests comparing looks to
the target picture to chance at target word onset, i.e. the first

frame visible in Fig. 4, to make a first assessment of the effect
of semantic context and speaking style. We find that at target
word onset, the proportion of looks to the target is already significantly above chance for all sentence types with High Predictability semantic context (Conversational t(35) = 4.2,
p < 0.0001; Clear t(35) = 10.2, p < 0.0001; IDS t(35) = 7.9,
p < 0.0001). This indicates that the semantic context in itself
is already helpful for target word recognition, regardless of
speaking style. For the sentences with Low Predictability
semantic contexts, overall looks to the target at target word
onset were not significantly different from chance for
Clear sentences (t(35) = 0.6, p = n.s.) nor for IDS sentences
(t(35) = 0.6, p = n.s.), and marginally significant for Conversational sentences (t(35) = 2.0, p = 0.05).

To further asses the looks to the target object over time and
compare participants’ looking behavior on the six different sentence types, a mixed-effects linear regression model was fitto
the proportion of looks to the target object at each 33.33 ms
time frame, during the first one-second window after target
word onset. Speaking style (Conversational, Clear Speech,
IDS), semantic context (High Predictability, Low Predictability),
and time (frame) were tested as fixed effects, and participant
was included as a random intercept. The results are illustrated
in Fig. 4.

As above, models were tested against each other using
ANOVA, and the referent (intercept) of the best fitting model
was releveled for pairwise comparisons. The best-fitting
regression model (summarized in Table 5) included a threeway interaction among speaking style, semantic content, and
time. The proportion of fixations to the target were significantly
higher for High Predictability sentences than for Low
Predictability sentences in all three speaking styles (Clear:
b = 0.03, t(6649) = 18.879, p < 0.001; Conversational:
b = 0.07, t(6649) = 4.826, p < 0.001; IDS: b = 0.29,
t(6649) = 18.809, p < 0.001)). Among the High Predictability
sentences, the overall proportions of fixations to the target
was greatest in Clear Speech, less in IDS (Clear vs. IDS:
b = 0.06, t(6649) = 3.605, p < 0.001), and least in Conversational (Clear vs. Conversational: b = 0.13, t(6649) =
8.520, p < 0.001; IDS vs. Conversational: b = 0.08,

Fig. 3. Proportions of target fixations in quiet, as a function of the total looking time during a one second window of analysis, with standard errors. Bars illustrate target fixations during
the first second of each trial (before target, dark grey) versus the first second of each trial starting at target word onset (after target, light grey). The line at 50% represents chance. Three
stars indicate significant differences from chance at the p < 0.001 level. Data is broken down by speaking style (Conversational Speech (Conv), Clear Speech (CS), Infant-Directed
Speech (IDS)) and by semantic context (High Predictability (HP), Low Predictability (LP)).

---

Fig. 4. Participants’ target fixations, in quiet. Lines illustrate the proportion of looks to the
target picture in a one-second window after target word onset, by showing the looks to
the target picture calculated as the proportion of looks to the target compared to the total
looks to the target and distractor picture for each 33.33 ms time frame. The dotted line at
0.5 represents chance. Data is broken down by speaking style (Conversational Speech
(Conv), Clear Speech (CS), Infant-Directed Speech (IDS)) and by semantic context
(High Predictability (HP), Low Predictability (LP)).

Table 5
Experiment 2: summary of model fitting proportion of fixations to target. Intercept
represents proportion of fixations to target for High Predictability sentences in Clear
Speech.

|  | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | p value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept(CS,HP) | 0.79360 | 0.02228 | 35.625 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP | -0.29250 | 0.01549 | -18.879 | &lt;0.001 |
| Conv | -0.13200 | 0.01549 | -8.52 | &lt;0.001 |
| IDS | -0.05586 | 0.01549 | -3.605 | &lt;0.001 |
| Time(Frame) | -0.00012 | 0.00063 | -0.189 | 0.85 |
| LP*Conv | 0.21780 | 0.02191 | 9.937 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP*IDS | 0.00108 | 0.02191 | 0.049 | 0.96 |
| LP*Time | 0.01121 | 0.00089 | 12.637 | &lt;0.001 |
| Conv*Time | 0.00681 | 0.00089 | 7.679 | &lt;0.001 |
| IDS*Time | 0.00202 | 0.00089 | 2.276 | &lt;0.05 |
| LP*Conv*Time | -0.00909 | 0.00126 | -7.242 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP*IDS*Time | -0.00270 | 0.00126 | -2.154 | &lt;0.05 |

Random effects:

|  | Variance | Std. Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Participant | 0.01354 | 0.1164 |
| Residual | 0.03514 | 0.1875 |

t(6649) = 4.915, p < 0.001). For the Low Predictability sentences, listeners fixated the target most in Conversational, less
so in Clear Speech (Conversational vs. Clear Speech:
b = 0.09, t(6649) = 5.534, p < 0.001), and least in IDS
(Conversational vs. IDS: b = 0.14, t(6649) = 9.069,
p < 0.001; Clear Speech vs. IDS: b = 0.05, t(6649) =
3.535, p < 0.001). The effect of the time variable indicated
significant non-zero slopes for all conditions except for High
Predictability Clear Speech (Clear Speech, High Predictability:
p > 0.05; Conversational, Low Predictability: b = 0.01,
t(6649) = 17.683, p < 0.001; IDS, High Predictability:
b = 0.002, t(6649) = 3.031, p < 0.01; IDS, Low Predictability:
b = 0.01, t(6649) = 16.594, p < 0.001; Conversational, High
Predictability: b = 0.007, t(6649) = 10.670, p < 0.001; Conversational, Low Predictability: b = 0.009, t(6649) = 14.057,
p < 0.001). Listeners were at ceiling for High Predictability
Clear Speech sentences and did not change over time, but
looks to target increased significantly for all other sentences

in the first second after target word onset. Over the entire second, fixations to target increased more quickly (had steeper
slopes) for the Low Predictability sentences than for the High
Predictability sentences (Clear Speech: b = 0.01, t(6649)
= 12.637, p < 0.001; IDS: b = 0.009, t(6649) = 9.590,
p < 0.001; Conversational: b = 0.002, t(6649) = 2.395,
p < 0.05). For the three styles of High Predictability sentences,
fixations to target increased more rapidly for IDS than for Clear
Speech (b = 0.002, t(6649) = 2.276, p < 0.05) and even
more so for Conversational than for IDS (b = 0.005, t(6649)
= 5.402, p < 0.001). Among the Low Predictability sentences,
fixations increased faster for Clear Speech than for Conversational (b = 0.002, t(6649) = 2.564, p < 0.05), and the rate of
change for IDS did not differ from the other styles (ps > 0.05).

A visual inspection of the proportions of looks to the target in
the six conditions (Fig. 4) suggests that at least some conditions may have had non-linear trends of proportions of fixations
to the target over time, which would not be captured with the
linear time predictor in the model reported above. Therefore,
changes in looks over time were investigated using multiple
regression lines to fit the data in each condition instead of a
single line per condition. First, we analyzed the data using a
breakpoint linear regression analysis in order to test whether
each condition could be better described statistically with multiple regression lines, one on either side of a “breakpoint.” If
there is such a breakpoint, a segment on each side of it could
be described by a distinct equation and changes in slope and
intercept between the segments could be compared. For each
of the six conditions, each frame was tested as a possible
breakpoint in a breakpoint linear regression or standard linear
regression model. Models for only two conditions were
improved by the inclusion of a breakpoint: Low Predictability
sentences produced in Conversational (breakpoint at frame
3) and Low Predictability sentences produced in IDS (breakpoint at frame 4).

Since only two of the six conditions were better explained
with a breakpoint regression, and since the breakpoints
occurred in neighboring frames, an alternative approach was
taken to compare differences in slopes and intercepts among
the conditions at different time points. “Breakpoints” were uniformly assigned across the conditions by dividing the analysis
window into three bins: two 10-frame bins before frame 20
(666 ms, per the breakpoint analysis) and one bin of the 11
frames after frame 20 (the remainder of the analysis window).

For each bin, a mixed-effects linear regression model was
fit to the data with style (Conversational, Clear Speech, IDS),
context (High Predictability, Low Predictability), and time
(frame) tested as fixed effects and subject as a random intercept. Details of the results for each bin are included in Appendix B.InBin 1 (0–333 ms after target word onset), there was a
significant interaction of speaking style and semantic context
and a main effect of time, but no interactions between time
and the other factors. That is, immediately after target word
onset, looks to the target changed significantly over time, but
the change in proportion of looks did not vary across the six
conditions. In Bin 2 (333–666 ms after target word onset),
there was a three-way interaction between style, context,
and time. The proportion of looks to the target varied significantly across the six conditions, and the increase in looks over
time also varied across the conditions, with faster increases in looks to target in the three Low Predictability conditions than in
the three High Predictability conditions. In Bin 3 (666–1000 ms
after target word onset), there was an interaction between style
and context, but no main effect of time and no interactions with
time. By Bin 3, some differences between conditions
remained: looks to target in Low Predictability IDS remained
significantly lower than in High Predictability IDS and compared to the other Low Predictability conditions, and there were
fewer looks to target for Low Predictability Clear Speech than
for Low Predictability Conversational. However, by Bin 3, there
were no further changes in proportion of fixations over time for
any condition.

The results of Experiment 2 provide a more nuanced understanding of the intelligibility benefit reported in Experiment 1a
where ‘offline’ word recognition scores showed the overall benefit of combined speaking style and context enhancements.
Detailed analyses of the temporal dynamics of spoken word
recognition revealed differences already at the onset of the target word. These differences were due to speech clarity and
semantic information of the sentence portion preceding the target word. Listeners were faster to fixate the target picture for
the High Predictability Clear Speech and High Predictability
IDS sentences. They were also faster for Clear Speech sentences than IDS sentences. The beneficial effect of context
and speaking style continued to affect rate of fixations as listeners heard more of the target word itself. The bin analyses
showed that early on (Bin 1) listeners’ looks to the target picture increased uniformly across all conditions, nearly reaching
ceiling for the High Predictability conditions. The changes in
the looks to the target for the sentences in two predictability
contexts were distinct in Bin 2, 333 ms to 666 ms after target
word onset. Here, listeners hearing Low Predictability sentences continued to make steep, rapid gains in the proportion
of looks to the target. By Bin 3, participants had reached their
final maximum looks to the target and there were no further
changes over time. Overall, listeners performed at ceiling in
this online word-recognition task in which they heard all sentences in quiet. Note that the fixation rates never reach
100%, even though this task in quiet is rather easy, likely
due to the fact that the listeners were never instructed specifically to look at the target picture. Next, we examine whether
the speaking style and context benefit for the time course of
word recognition is maintained under adverse listening conditions, i.e., in noise.

## 4. Experiment 3 – Word recognition in noise

## 4.1. Method

## 4.1.1. Participants

Eighteen additional adult native monolingual speakers of
American English (11 female, age range 20–24 years) participated in Experiment 3. All participants were undergraduate
students at the University of Texas at Austin and received
class credit for their participation. Two additional participants
were tested but not included in the analyses because of equipment failure (n = 1) and extreme distractedness leading to the
subject not looking at the screen and missing data on more
than half of the trials (n = 1). All passed a pure-tone hearing

screening, administered bilaterally at 25 dB HL at 500, 1000,
2000, and 4000 Hz.

## 4.1.2. Stimuli, apparatus, and procedure

The 36 sentences used in Experiment 2 were digitally mixed
with speech-shaped noise (SSN) at an SNR of 5 dB SPL, the
same noise and SNR as used in Experiment 1a. Each auditory
stimulus in Experiment 3 consisted of a 1.5 second silent lead,
followed by 500 ms of noise and the target sentence in noise,
and ended with silence, so that all trials were (as in Experiment
2) exactly 5.5 s in duration. Visual stimuli, apparatus, and procedure were identical to Experiment 2.

## 4.2. Results and discussion

Proportions of target object fixations are illustrated for each
of the different trial types before and after target word onset in
Fig. 5.

Two-tailed t-tests were conducted to compare looks to
chance or 50%; as in Experiment 2, looks to the target ‘before’
(during the first second of each trial) were at chance level for all
six sentence types, again illustrating no inherent biases or picture preferences. (Conversational–Low Predictability t(17) =
0.7, p = n.s.; Conversational-High Predictability t(17) = 1.2,
p = n.s.; Clear-Low Predictability t(17) = 0.4, p = n.s.; Clear-
High Predictability t(17) = 0.7, p = n.s.; IDS-Low Predictability
t(17) = 2.1, p = n.s.; IDS-High Predictability t(17) = 0.7,
p = n.s.). Looks to the target ‘after’ (during a one-second
window beginning at target word onset) were significantly
different from 0 for all conditions, except for the Conversational
sentences with Low Predictability semantic context.
(Conversational–Low Predictability t(17) = 1.3, p = n.s.;
Conversational-High Predictability t(17) = 3.5, p = 0.01.;
Clear-Low Predictability t(17) = 2.5, p < 0.05; Clear-High Predictability t(17) = 4.1, p < 0.0001; IDS-Low Predictability
t(17) = 3.8, p < 0.05.; IDS-High Predictability t(17) = 5.3,
p < 0.001). This indicates that unlike in silence (Experiment
2), target words in noise in Low Probability Conversational
sentences were not significantly recognized during the first
second after target word onset. This sentence type arguably
represents the most difficult condition in this experiment as it
provides the least acoustic and semantic cues of all sentence
types, as illustrated by these proportion of looking time
analyses.

As for Experiment 2, we conducted two-tailed t-tests comparing looks to the target picture to chance at target word
onset, i.e. the first frame visible in Fig. 6.Wefind that at target
word onset, the proportion of looks to the target is significantly
above chance for Clear and IDS sentences with High Predictability semantic context (Clear t(17) = 4.2, p < 0.001; IDS t
(17) = 3.7, p < 0.001). Unlike in Experiment 2, at target word
onset the proportion of target fixations was not significant yet
for Conversational sentences with High Predictability context
(t(17) = 1.9, p = n.s.); nor for Conversational or Clear
sentences with Low Predictability semantic contexts
(Conversational t(17) = 1.9, p = n.s.; Clear t(17) = 0.2, p = n.s.).
Target fixations for IDS Low Predictability sentences were marginally significant from chance (t(17) = 2.1, p = 0.05).

To further asses the looks to the target object over time and
compare participants’ looking behavior on the six different

---

Fig. 5. Proportions of target fixations in noise, as a function of the total looking time during a one second window of analysis, with standard errors. Bars illustrate target fixations during
the first second of each trial (before target, dark grey) versus the first second of each trial starting at target word onset (after target, light grey). The line at 50% represents chance. Stars
indicate significant differences from chance (one star at the p < 0.05 level, two stars at the p < 0.01 level, three stars at the p < 0.001 level). Data is broken down by speaking style
(Conversational Speech (Conv), Clear Speech (CS), Infant-Directed Speech (IDS)) and by semantic context (High Predictability (HP), Low Predictability (LP)).

sentence types, a mixed-effects linear regression model was fit
to the proportion of looks to the target object at each 33.33 ms
time frame, during the first one-second window after target
word onset. Speaking style (Conversational, CS, IDS), semantic context (HP, LP), and time (frame) were tested as fixed
effects, and participant was included as a random intercept.
The results of Experiment 3 are summarized in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Participants’ target fixations, in noise. Lines illustrate the proportion of looks to
the target picture in a one-second window after target word onset, by showing the looks
to the target picture calculated as the proportion of looks to the target compared to the
total looks to the target and distractor picture for each 33.33 ms time frame. The dotted
line at 0.5 represents chance. Data is broken down by speaking style (Conversational
Speech (Conv), Clear Speech (CS), Infant-Directed Speech (IDS)) and by semantic
context (High Predictability (HP), Low Predictability (LP)).

As for Experiment 2, models were tested against each other
using ANOVA, and the referent (intercept) of the best fitting
model was releveled for pairwise comparisons. As was the
case for Experiment 2, the best-fitting regression model for listening in noise included a three-way interaction among speaking style, semantic content, and time; the model summary is
presented in Table 6. For the Clear Speech sentences, the proportion of fixations to target was greater in the High Predictability sentences than the Low Predictability sentences
(b = 0.16, t(3288) = 6.275, p < 0.001); there was no differ-

$$
(\beta=-0.16,\ t(3288)=-6.275,\ p00.01)
$$

Table 6
Experiment 3: summary of model fitting proportion of fixations to target. Intercept
represents proportion of fixations to target for High Predictability sentences in Clear
Speech.

|  | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | p value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept(CS,HP) | 0.67520 | 0.03737 | 18.067 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP | -0.15660 | 0.02496 | -6.275 | &lt;0.001 |
| Conv | -0.08508 | 0.02496 | -3.408 | &lt;0.001 |
| IDS | -0.00249 | 0.02496 | -0.1 | 0.92 |
| Time(Frame) | -0.00160 | 0.00101 | -1.58 | 0.11 |
| LP*Conv | 0.15850 | 0.03558 | 4.454 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP*IDS | 0.11640 | 0.03530 | 3.296 | &lt;0.001 |
| LP*Time | 0.00374 | 0.00143 | 2.613 | &lt;0.01 |
| Conv*Time | 0.00051 | 0.00143 | 0.359 | 0.72 |
| IDS*Time | 0.00180 | 0.00143 | 1.258 | 0.21 |
| LP*Conv*Time | -0.00489 | 0.00204 | -2.403 | &lt;0.05 |
| LP*IDS*Time | -0.00703 | 0.00202 | -3.476 | &lt;0.001 |

Random effects:

|  | Variance | Std. Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Participant | 0.01953 | 0.1398 |
| Residual | 0.04561 | 0.2136 |

ence between semantic contexts for IDS and Conversational
(p > 0.05). Among the High Predictability sentences, there
were significantly fewer fixations to target for Conversational
than for either Clear Speech or IDS (Clear vs. Conversational:
b = 0.09, t(3288) = 3.408, p < 0.001; IDS vs. Conversational: b = 0.08, t(3288) = 3.309, p < 0.001; CS vs. IDS:
p > 0.05)). For the Low Predictability sentences, the pattern
was different: listeners had significantly lower proportions of
looks to the target for sentences produced in Clear Speech
than in Conversational (b = 0.07, t(3288) = 2.895, p < 0.01),
and Low Predictability IDS did not significantly differ from the
other Low Predictability styles (ps > 0.05). There was a significant increase in looks over time only for the Low Predictability
sentences in Clear Speech (b = 0.002, t(3288) = 2.115,
p < 0.05); the slopes in all other conditions did not differ from
zero (ps > 0.05). As such, looks to target in Low Predictability
Clear Speech increased significantly faster than in the other Low Predictability speaking styles (IDS: b = 0.005,
t(3288) = 3.658, p < 0.001; Conversational: b = 0.004,
t(3288) = 3.021, p < 0.01), and the increase in Low Predictability Clear Speech was faster than in High Predictability
Clear Speech (b = 0.004, t(3288) = 2.613p < 0.01). There
were no other differences between conditions in terms of rate
of increase in fixations (ps > 0.05). Since time was only significant for Low Predictability Clear Speech sentences, and since
the increase in looks to target over time for Low Predictability
Clear Speech was minimal (looks to target increased 0.2% in
each frame), no further analyses (e.g. breakpoint regression
or a binned analysis) were conducted to explore changes over
time.

As in quiet, adult listeners benefited from semantic context
in the enhanced acoustic–phonetic conditions in a more challenging listening condition. Fixation rates were higher for High
Predictability Clear Speech and High Predictability IDS sentences than for the other conditions. Unlike in quiet, Clear
Speech and IDS modifications contributed equally to the
increased fixation rates for High Predictability sentences. The
results revealed no context or speaking style effect for Conversational sentences. In the Low Predictability condition in general, acoustic–phonetic enhancements did not aid word
recognition. Also, unlike in quiet, there was no evidence of further increases in fixation rates over the target word, i.e., looks
to target did not change over the analysis window. In challenging listening conditions, the benefit of the context and speaking
style that was maximally evident at the onset of the target word
did not increase further even after the target word was heard.

## 5. General discussion

This study examined the influence of two listener-oriented
speaking styles (Clear Speech and IDS) and the presence or
absence of a high predictability semantic context on word
recognition. Young adult listeners were tested in ‘offline’ and
‘online’ tasks, in quiet and in noise. We first tested the combined effects of IDS and Clear Speech and High- and Low-
Predictability semantic contexts on word recognition in noise
(Experiment 1a) and on pleasantness ratings (Experiment
1b). Results showed that both the speaking style modifications
and High Predictability semantic context led to improved word
recognition in noise. This is in line with evidence from a number of studies showing intelligibility benefit for Clear Speech
and High Predictability context (Bradlow & Alexander, 2007;
Smiljanic & Sladen, 2013; Van Engen et al., 2012). Here, we
also showed that IDS in combination with High Predictability
context resulted in the most accurate transcriptions of
sentence-final target words masked with noise. The intelligibility benefit of IDS for young adult listeners suggests that the
effect of IDS on infants’ and young children’s development
cannot be attributed to affect and attractiveness alone (cf.
Benders, 2013; McMurray et al., 2013). Rather the specific
acoustic–phonetic modifications, segmental and suprasegmental, typically found in IDS likely contributed to the
increased intelligibility found here (Adriaans & Swingley,
2017; Cristià, 2010, 2013; Eaves et al., 2016; Englund, 2005;
Sundberg & Lacerda, 1999; Wang et al., 2016). It remains to
be determined whether the same perceptual advantage is
found for children listening to Clear Speech, which lacks the

affective and prosodic characteristics responsible for children’s
heightened attention when listening to IDS.

Differences in intelligibility levels (Experiment 1a) as well as
pleasantness ratings (Experiment 1b) suggest that the acoustic–phonetic modifications differed for the two listener-oriented
styles elicited in the current study. This is in line with previous
work established that talkers tailor their spoken output to meet
the demands of the communicative situation, which results in
different acoustic–phonetic modifications (Hazan & Baker,
2011; Lam & Tjaden, 2013; Lam, Tjaden, & Wilding, 2012;
Smiljanic & Gilbert, 2017) and that IDS differs from Lombard
speech, foreigner-directed speech, and read speech (Martin
et al., 2014; Scarborough et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2017).
The intelligibility advantage of the IDS over Clear Speech in
Experiment 1a could be attributed to the effectiveness of some
of the specific IDS modifications, such as enhanced stress and
F0 cues, against the masking effect of the noise (Liss, Spitzer,
Caviness, Adler, & Edwards, 1998; Mattys et al., 2005; Welby,
2007). Future work should compare acoustic characteristics of
IDS and Clear Speech elicited for the same materials by more
talkers to better understand in what ways the two modifications
are similar and in what ways they are different.

The current study provides evidence that listeners were
able to utilize some of these modifications to enhance speech
recognition in noise; however, it is important to keep in mind
that a direct link between any one acoustic–articulatory modification and increased intelligibility remains rather tenuous
(Godoy, Koutsogiannaki, & Stylianou, 2014; Krause, 2001;
Krause & Braida, 2004; Liu & Zeng, 2006; Picheny, Durlach,
& Braida, 1989; Tjaden, Kain, & Lam, 2014; Uchanski, Choi,
Braida, Reed, & Durlach, 1996). The current study was not
designed to assess how much each of these individual acoustic–phonetic features contributes to intelligibility exactly, but
rather to illustrate how conversational-to-clear and adult-toinfant speech modification affect overall speech processing
in quiet and in noise.

The pleasantness results in Experiment 1b revealed that
young adult listeners rated IDS as neutral, demonstrating that
the exaggerated prosodic characteristics of IDS led to neither
negative assessment nor diminished intelligibility. In contrast,
adult-directed Clear Speech was judged as significantly less
pleasant in the High Predictability context. It is possible that
when listeners hear Clear Speech in a non-challenging, quiet
acoustic environment they may perceive it as “unnecessary”
and potentially even grating or condescending. Morgan and
Ferguson (2017) found that both young adults with normal
hearing and older adults with hearing impairment rated Clear
Speech as angrier compared to Conversational speech. Some
of the Conversational-to-clear speech modifications are similar
to the expression of anger in speech (Banse & Scherer, 1996;
Scherer, Johnstone, & Klasmeyer, 2003) and may contribute
to the perceived unpleasantness especially in situations when
the contextual cues already contributed to high intelligibility. It
is also possible that IDS in High Predictability context was not
rated as unpleasant as Clear Speech because adult listeners
perceived the infant-directed style as misdirected, but not condescending. Pleasantness results did reveal more individual
variation in the ratings of IDS sentences compared to Clear
Speech and Conversational sentences. The varying degrees
of subjective perception of IDS may be related to the listener’s experience interacting with young children and exposure to and
usage of IDS. Recently, Smiljanic and Gilbert (2017) argued
that acoustic–phonetic characteristics of the talker’s speech,
rather than the interaction between talker- and listener-related
factors, determined, to a large extent, intelligibility variation for
talkers of different ages (also Bradlow, Torretta, & Pisoni,
1996; Hazan & Markham, 2004). This suggests that the listeners’ IDS pleasantness ratings in the current study could also be
more related to the acoustic characteristics of IDS, rather than
their experience with hearing IDS and talking to children. Future
work should consider individual differences in pleasantness ratings for various speaking style adaptations and how these ratings relate to intelligibility variation. The perceived emotion of
speaking styles should also be examined for sentences in noise
so that the intelligibility-enhancing nature of Clear Speech is
assessed in a more ‘expected’ setting.

With the established intelligibility benefit of speaking styles
and context, Experiments 2 and 3 tested online word recognition in quiet and noise. In both environments, combined acoustic–phonetic and semantic enhancements contributed to
improved word recognition. When listeners heard High Predictability Clear Speech and High Predictability IDS sentences
in quiet, fixations to target were nearly at ceiling at the word
onset. Enhanced acoustic cues allowed listeners to utilize
semantic context to build up predictions about the upcoming
final word, such that they were already fixating the target word
at its onset. In fact, hearing the target word itself contributed little
to their fixations further as evident in shallow fixation slopes
across the target words in High Predictability IDS and High Predictability Clear Speech. Future work is needed to determine
how early the facilitatory effect of speaking styles and context
can be observed in a sentence. Lack of context, even when
acoustic–phonetic cues were enhanced, provided little evidence to the listeners as to which picture to fixate, resulting in
overall lower fixation rates on the target word at its onset. The
target word itself contributed more significantly to word recognition in the contexts where preceding information was insufficient, as seen in greater fixation slope changes for Low
Predictability sentences. Listeners thus benefited most from
the exaggerated acoustic–phonetic cues on the target word
when little semantic information was available to help them predict it. These findings are in line with the results from Experiment
1, in that adult listeners benefited from both listener-oriented
speaking styles and contextual cues when processing speech
in quiet. An interesting difference between the two experiments
is that IDS showed an intelligibility advantage over Clear
Speech in Experiment 1a, but Clear Speech contributed more
to word recognition in Experiment 2. The main difference is that
in Experiment 1a, listeners were hearing sentences mixed with
noise, while in Experiment 2, they heard sentences in quiet. As
mentioned above, it is possible that the specific acoustic–phonetic characteristics of the IDS sentences made them stand
out more from the masking effect of the noise so that listeners
were overall more accurate when identifying IDS words in noise.

As expected, the task of fixating one of the two pictures on
the screen when listening to speech in noise became more difficult. As in Experiment 2 (and 1a), a combination of contextual
cues and speaking style modifications (High Predictability sentences in Clear Speech and IDS) enabled the most reliable and
rapid lexical access. However, listeners in Experiment 3 fixated

the target pictures overall less than in Experiment 2. Even
when hearing the High Predictability IDS and High Predictability Clear Speech sentences, listeners were less certain of
which picture to look at by the time the target word was produced. The noise disrupted their ability to utilize contextual
cues to the same extent as in quiet. Furthermore, unlike in
quiet, there were no significant changes in proportions of fixations over the course of the target word for any sentence type.
In noise, the beneficial effect of the acoustic–phonetic
enhancements on the target word itself was diminished for
Low Predictability sentences, precisely the context in which
we saw biggest recognition gains in quiet. Unlike in Experiment
1, IDS did not provide a bigger processing advantage compared to Clear Speech. Even though listeners were ultimately
more accurate in word identification in noise when hearing IDS
sentences compared to Clear Speech sentences, this advantage was not evident in fixation rates on the target word during
online processing. The results thus reveal a processing cost
even for enhanced acoustic and semantic information when
processing speech in noise, which is not evident when examining ‘offline’ accuracy alone.

The difficulty of speech processing in noise could arise from
multiple sources. Processing degraded speech can be effortful
(cf. effortfulness hypothesis, McCoy et al., 2005) and can tax
working memory (Francis & Nusbaum, 2009; Francis, 2010;
Rabbitt, 1968). Perceptual effort to correctly recognize words
masked by noise may diminish the cognitive resources for building up the meaning over the course of the evolving High Predictability sentences. Similar difficulties in using semantic
context in challenging listening situations were observed for children and non-native listeners (Bradlow & Alexander, 2007;
Smiljanic & Sladen, 2013). The effect of noise can be evident
at all levels of linguistic processing (Mattys et al., 2012). That
is, the masking effect of noise can disrupt mapping of acoustic–phonetic features to segmental representations and access
to suprasegmental information, such as F0 variation and the distribution of pauses, which indicates prosodic boundaries. This,
in turn, can disrupt mapping to lexical representations leading
to increased lexical uncertainty, selecting wrong lexical items,
or failing to access a lexical item at all. While not implicating
any one of these processes directly, the current findings demonstrate that noise disrupts processing both at the signal-related
(accessing acoustic–phonetic cues) and higher-level linguistic
structural (utilizing sentence context) levels. How exactly speaking style and semantic enhancements aid these different processes and what is the relative timing of these sources of
enhancements remains a pressing goal for future work.

Taken together, the results from this study provide insights
into the extent and limits of the influence of listener-oriented
speaking styles and semantic context on offline wordidentification in noise and online word recognition in quiet
and noise. Overall the results demonstrate that spoken word
processing is enhanced through speaking style modifications
and the presence of high-predictability contextual information.
The online word recognition results revealed fine-grained differences between processing of different speaking styles and
semantic context in silence compared to noise, and provided
novel insights into the locus of the intelligibility benefit. The
results also provide evidence that the acoustic–phonetic modifications of IDS lead to improved word recognition for young adult listeners. To fully understand the contribution of the various Clear Speech and IDS features on offline and online measures of word recognition in quiet and noise, children should be
tested (preliminary findings are reported in Van der Feest et al.,
2016;). Additional work is required to further clarify the relationships among intelligibility-enhancing cues and the way that
children and young adults use these modifications to aid spoken word processing.

## Acknowledgements

We thank members of the UT Sound Lab and Child Language Lab
Austin for help with data collection and coding. Portions of this work
were presented at Acoustical Society of America Meetings, Providence, Rhode Island, May 2014; Jacksonville, Florida, November
2015; and the Boston University Conference on Language Development, November 2016, Boston, Massachusetts.

## Appendix A

Pleasantness ratings (Experiment 1b), distribution of raw scores. Distributions are expressed in density per raw pleasantness
rating, for each sentence type: Conversational Speech (Conv), Clear Speech (CS), and Infant-Directed Speech (IDS).

## Appendix B

Details of bin analyses (Experiment 2). For the binned analyses, the 31 frames (0–30) were divided into three bins at frames 9
and 19: frames 0–9 in Bin 1, frames 10–19 in Bin 2, and frames 20–30 in Bin 3.

## Bin 1

Summary of model fitting proportion of fixations to target in frames 0–9. Intercept represents proportion of fixations to target for
high predictability sentences in Clear Speech.

|  | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | p value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept(CS,High) | 0.5485 | 0.0407 | 13.469 | &lt;0.001 |
| Low Predictability | -0.4958 | 0.0274 | -18.092 | &lt;0.001 |
| Conversational | -0.2313 | 0.0274 | -8.439 | &lt;0.001 |
| IDS | -0.0687 | 0.0274 | -2.505 | &lt;0.05 |
| Time(Frame) | 0.01 | 0.00275 | 3.614 | &lt;0.001 |
| Low*Conv | 0.3497 | 0.0388 | 9.024 | &lt;0.001 |
| Low*IDS | -0.0123 | 0.0388 | -0.316 | 0.75 |

## Random effects:

|  | Variance | Std. Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Participant | 0.04179 | 0.2044 |
| Residual | 0.13893 | 0.3727 |

---

## Bin 2

Summary of model fitting proportion of fixations to target in frames 10–19. Intercept represents proportion of fixations to target
for high predictability sentences in Clear Speech.
Model:

|  | Estimate | Std. Error | t-value | p-value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept(CS,High) | 0.6668 | 0.1042 | 6.399 | &lt;0.001 |
| Low Predictability | -0.8296 | 0.1361 | -6.095 | &lt;0.001 |
| Conversational | -0.2385 | 0.1361 | -1.752 | 0.0799 |
| IDS | -0.04648 | 0.1361 | -0.342 | 0.7327 |
| Time(Frame) | -0.004090 | 0.006511 | -0.628 | 0.5300 |
| Low*Conv | 0.4495 | 0.1925 | 2.335 | 0.0196 |
| Low*IDS | -0.002649 | 0.1925 | -0.014 | 0.9890 |
| Time*Conv | 0.01291 | 0.009207 | 1.402 | 0.1609 |
| Time*IDS | -0.0002675 | 0.009207 | -0.029 | 0.9768 |
| Low*Time | 0.04068 | 0.009207 | 4.418 | &lt;0.001 |
| Low*Conv*Time | -0.01800 | 0.01302 | -1.382 | 0.1670 |
| Low*IDS*Time | -0.003487 | 0.01302 | -0.268 | 0.7889 |

## Random effects:

|  | Variance | Std. Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Participant | 0.05902 | 0.2429 |
| Residual | 0.12939 | 0.3597 |

## Bin 3

Summary of model fitting proportion of fixations to target in frames 20–30. Intercept represents proportion of fixations to target
for high predictability sentences in Clear Speech.

Model:

|  | Estimate | Std. Error | t-value | p-value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept(CS,High) | 0.5876 | 0.04769 | 12.321 | &lt;0.001 |
| Low probability | -0.03049 | 0.02226 | -1.370 | 0.17085 |
| Conversational | 0.03309 | 0.02226 | 1.487 | 0.13726 |
| IDS | -0.007453 | 0.02226 | -0.335 | 0.73777 |
| Low*Conv | 0.01509 | 0.03148 | 0.479 | 0.63163 |
| Low*IDS | -0.09057 | 0.03148 | -2.877 | 0.00405 |

## Random effects:

|  | Variance | Std. Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Participant | 0.07498 | 0.2738 |
| Residual | 0.10081 | 0.3175 |

## Appendix C

Test orders Experiment 2 and 3.

| ORDER 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Trial # | Left Image | Right Image | Predictability(H/L) | Style(Clear/Convl/IDS) | Auditory Stimulus(# of syllables) |
| 1 | ball | bed | H | clear | We played catch with the ball |
| 2 | horse | sock | H | clear | We put the shoe on after the sock |
| 3 | fish | fork | H | clear | I went to the pond and caught a fish |
| 4 | book | bus | H | Conversational | I like to read a book |

---

(continued)

| ORDER 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Trial # | Left Image | Right Image | Predictability(H/L) | Style(Clear/Convl/IDS) | Auditory Stimulus, (# of syllables) |  |
| 5 | corn | cup | H | Conversational | I drink juice out of a cup |  |
| 6 | shoe | doll | H | Conversational | The girl played with her doll |  |
| 7 | cheese | chair | H | IDS | Mice like to eat cheese |  |
| 8 | fish | fork | H | IDS | I eat spaghetti with a fork |  |
| 9 | pants | pig | H | IDS | I fell and ripped my pants |  |
| filler swimming fish |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 10 | cat | car | L | clear | She pointed at the car |  |
| 11 | sock | horse | L | clear | She pointed at the horse |  |
| 12 | pig | pants | L | clear | She pointed at the pig |  |
| 13 | corn | cup | L | IDS | Dad pointed at the corn |  |
| 14 | book | bus | L | IDS | Mom looked at the bus |  |
| 15 | bed | bal | L | IDS | We read about the bed |  |
| 16 | doll | shoe | L | Conversational | He pointed at the shoe |  |
| 17 | chair | cheese | L | Conversational | She talked about the chair |  |
| 18 | cat | car | L | Conversational | We pointed at the cat |  |
| filler flying bird |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 19 | fish | fork | H | clear | I went to the pond and caught a fish |  |
| 20 | horse | sock | H | clear | We put the shoe on after the sock |  |
| 21 | ball | bed | H | clear | We played catch with the ball |  |
| 22 | cup | cup | H | Conversational | I drink juice out of a cup |  |
| 23 | doll | shoe | H | Conversational | The girl played with her doll |  |
| 24 | book | bus | H | Conversational | I like to read a book |  |
| 25 | fish | fork | H | IDS | I eat spaghetti with a fork |  |
| 26 | cheese | chair | H | IDS | Mice like to eat cheese |  |
| 27 | pig | pants | H | IDS | I fell and ripped my pants |  |
| filler bouncing ducks |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 28 | car | cat | L | clear | She pointed at the car |  |
| 29 | pig | pants | L | clear | She pointed at the pig |  |
| 30 | sock | horse | L | clear | She pointed at the horse |  |
| 31 | cup | corn | L | IDS | He talked about the cup |  |
| 32 | book | bus | L | IDS | Mom looked at the bus |  |
| 33 | ball | bed | L | IDS | We read about the bed |  |
| 34 | chair | cheese | L | Conversational | She talked about the chair |  |
| 35 | doll | shoe | L | Conversational | He pointed at the shoe |  |
| 36 | cat | car | L | Conversational | We pointed at the cat |  |

ORDER 2

| Trial # | Left Image | Right Image | Predictability(H/L) | Style(clear/Conv/IDS) | Auditory Stimulus |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | ball | bed | H | Conversational | We played catch with the ball |
| 2 | horse | sock | H | Conversational | We put the shoe on after the sock |
| 3 | fish | fork | H | Conversational | I went to the pond and caught a fish |
| 4 | book | bus | H | IDS | I like to read a book |
| 5 | corn | cup | H | IDS | I drink juice out of a cup |
| 6 | shoe | doll | H | IDS | The girl played with her doll |
| 7 | cheese | chair | H | clear | Mice like to eat cheese |
| 8 | fish | fork | H | clear | I eat spaghetti with a fork |
| 9 | pants | pig | H | clear | I fell and ripped my pants |
| filler swimming fish |  |  |  |  |  |
| 10 | cat | car | L | Conversational | She pointed at the car |
| 11 | sock | horse | L | Conversational | She pointed at the horse |
| 12 | pig | pants | L | Conversational | She pointed at the pig |
| 13 | corn | cup | L | clear | Dad pointed at the corn |
| 14 | book | bus | L | clear | Mom looked at the bus |
| 15 | bed | bal | L | clear | We read about the bed |

---

(continued)

| ORDER 2 |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Trial # | Left Image | Right Image | Predictability(H/L) | Style(clear/Conv/IDS) | Auditory Stimulus |
| 16 | doll | shoe | L | IDS | He pointed at the shoe |
| 17 | chair | cheese | L | IDS | She talked about the chair |
| 18 | cat | car | L | IDS | We pointed at the cat |
| filler flying bird |  |  |  |  |  |
| 19 | fish | fork | H | Conversational | I went to the pond and caught a fish |
| 20 | horse | sock | H | Conversational | We put the shoe on after the sock |
| 21 | ball | bed | H | Conversational | We played catch with the ball |
| 22 | corn | cup | H | IDS | I drink juice out of a cup |
| 23 | doll | shoe | H | IDS | The girl played with her doll |
| 24 | book | bus | H | IDS | I like to read a book |
| 25 | fish | fork | H | clear | I eat spaghetti with a fork |
| 26 | cheese | chair | H | clear | Mice like to eat cheese |
| 27 | pig | pants | H | clear | I fell and ripped my pants |
| filler bouncing ducks |  |  |  |  |  |
| 28 | car | cat | L | Conversational | She pointed at the car |
| 29 | pig | pants | L | Conversational | She pointed at the pig |
| 30 | sock | horse | L | Conversational | She pointed at the horse |
| 31 | cup | corn | L | clear | He talked about the cup |
| 32 | book | bus | L | clear | Mom looked at the bus |
| 33 | ball | bed | L | clear | We read about the bed |
| 34 | chair | cheese | L | IDS | She talked about the chair |
| 35 | doll | shoe | L | IDS | He pointed at the shoe |
| 36 | cat | car | L | IDS | We pointed at the cat |

ORDER 3

| Trial # | Left Image | Right Image | Predictability(H/L) | Style(Clear/Convl/IDS) | Auditory Stimulus |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | ball | bed | H | IDS | We played catch with the ball |
| 2 | horse | sock | H | IDS | We put the shoe on after the sock |
| 3 | fish | fork | H | IDS | I went to the pond and caught a fish |
| 4 | book | bus | H | clear | I like to read a book |
| 5 | corn | cup | H | clear | I drink juice out of a cup |
| 6 | shoe | doll | H | clear | The girl played with her doll |
| 7 | cheese | chair | H | Conversational | Mice like to eat cheese |
| 8 | fish | fork | H | Conversational | I eat spaghetti with a fork |
| 9 | pants | pig | H | Conversational | I fell and ripped my pants |
| filler swimming fish |  |  |  |  |  |
| 10 | cat | car | L | IDS | She pointed at the car |
| 11 | sock | horse | L | IDS | She pointed at the horse |
| 12 | pig | pants | L | IDS | She pointed at the pig |
| 13 | corn | cup | L | Conversational | Dad pointed at the corn |
| 14 | book | bus | L | Conversational | Mom looked at the bus |
| 15 | bed | bal | L | Conversational | We read about the bed |
| 16 | doll | shoe | L | clear | He pointed at the shoe |
| 17 | chair | cheese | L | clear | She talked about the chair |
| 18 | cat | car | L | clear | We pointed at the cat |
| filler flying bird |  |  |  |  |  |
| 19 | fish | fork | H | IDS | I went to the pond and caught a fish |
| 20 | horse | sock | H | IDS | We put the shoe on after the sock |
| 21 | ball | bed | H | IDS | We played catch with the ball |
| 22 | corn | cup | H | clear | I drink juice out of a cup |
| 23 | doll | shoe | H | clear | The girl played with her doll |
| 24 | book | bus | H | clear | I like to read a book |
| 25 | fish | fork | H | Conversational | I eat spaghetti with a fork |
| 26 | cheese | chair | H | Conversational | Mice like to eat cheese |
| 27 | pig | pants | H | Conversational | I fell and ripped my pants |

---

(continued)

| ORDER 3 |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Trial # | Left Image | Right Image | Predictability(H/L) | Style(Clear/ConvI/IDS) | Auditory Stimulus |
| filler bouncing ducks |  |  |  |  |  |
| 28 | car | cat | L | IDS | She pointed at the car |
| 29 | pig | pants | L | IDS | She pointed at the pig |
| 30 | sock | horse | L | IDS | She pointed at the horse |
| 31 | cup | corn | L | Conversational | He talked about the cup |
| 32 | book | bus | L | Conversational | Mom looked at the bus |
| 33 | ball | bed | L | Conversational | We read about the bed |
| 34 | chair | cheese | L | clear | She talked about the chair |
| 35 | doll | shoe | L | clear | He pointed at the shoe |
| 36 | cat | car | L | clear | We pointed at the cat |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ORDER 4(equal to order 1, with predictability reversed and half the target sides randomly mixed) |  |  |  |  |  |
| Trial # | Left Image | Right Image | Predictability(H/L) | Style(Clear/ConvI/IDS) | Auditory Stimulus |
| 1 | ball | bed | L | clear | Mom pointed at the ball |
| 2 | horse | sock | L | clear | Mom looked at the sock |
| 3 | fish | fork | L | clear | Mom talked about the fish |
| 4 | book | bus | L | Conversational | Dad looked at the book |
| 5 | corn | cup | L | Conversational | He talked about the cup |
| 6 | shoe | doll | L | Conversational | We read about the doll |
| 7 | cheese | chair | L | IDS | He looked at the cheese |
| 8 | fish | fork | L | IDS | Dad read about the fork |
| 9 | pants | pig | L | IDS | He read about the pants |
| filler swimming fish |  |  |  |  |  |
| 10 | car | cat | H | clear | We drove to the store in our car |
| 11 | horse | sock | H | clear | I learned how to ride a horse |
| 12 | pants | pig | H | clear | The farmer fed the pig |
| 13 | cup | corn | H | IDS | Dad pointed at the corn |
| 14 | bus | book | H | IDS | Dad rides to work on the bus |
| 15 | bal | bed | H | IDS | I fell asleep on my bed |
| 16 | shoe | doll | H | Conversational | I know how to tie a shoe |
| 17 | cheese | chair | H | Conversational | I sat down on the chair |
| 18 | car | cat | H | Conversational | The dog chased the cat |
| filler flying bird |  |  |  |  |  |
| 19 | fish | fork | L | clear | Mom talked about the fish |
| 20 | horse | sock | L | clear | Mom looked at the sock |
| 21 | ball | bed | L | clear | Mom pointed at the ball |
| 22 | corn | cup | L | Conversational | He talked about the cup |
| 23 | doll | shoe | L | Conversational | We read about the doll |
| 24 | book | bus | L | Conversational | Dad looked at the book |
| 25 | fish | fork | L | IDS | Dad read about the fork |
| 26 | cheese | chair | L | IDS | He looked at the cheese |
| 27 | pig | pants | L | IDS | He read about the pants |
| filler bouncing ducks |  |  |  |  |  |
| 28 | cat | car | H | clear | We drove to the store in our car |
| 29 | pants | pig | H | clear | The farmer fed the pig |
| 30 | horse | sock | H | clear | I learned how to ride a horse |
| 31 | corn | cup | H | IDS | I drink juice out of a cup |
| 32 | bus | book | H | IDS | Dad rides to work on the bus |
| 33 | bed | ball | H | IDS | I fell asleep on my bed |
| 34 | cheese | chair | H | Conversational | I sat down on the chair |
| 35 | shoe | doll | H | Conversational | I know how to tie a shoe |
| 36 | car | cat | H | Conversational | The dog chased the cat |

Order 5 was equal to Order 2 except with the Predictability (H/L) of each sentence reversed, and half the target sides randomly
mixed; Order 6 was equal to Order 3 except with the Probabilities (H/L) of each sentence reversed, and half the target sides randomly mixed.

---

## References

Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 209. Consequences for vowel learnability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0005
Science, 9(3), 228–231. of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0175 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0010
VOT. Journal of Phonetics, 63,19–34. 100 milliseconds, regardless of whether there is anything to move the eyes to. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0015

Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2009). Effects of intelligibility on working memory Springer. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0020
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration: Sequential 59, 390–412. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0195 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0025

for speech of varying intelligibility. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Perception and Psychophysics, 44(395), 408. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0035
135(1), 389–399. Bard, E. G., Sotillo, C., Kelly, M. L., & Aylett, M. P. (2001). Taking the hit: Leaving some http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0040

14(1), 23–45. Hearing Research, 54(1), 243–262. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0050
Grieser, D. L., & Kuhl, P. K. (1988). Maternal speech to infants in a tonal language: Development, 36(4), 847–862. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0055
24(1), 14. software]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0060
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 28(4), 267–283. reduced and canonical spoken words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 519–539. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0065

Adriaans, F., & Swingley, D. (2017). Prosodic exaggeration within infant-directed speech:
Consequences for vowel learnability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 141(5), 3070–3078.
Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course
of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping
models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439.
Altmann, G. T. (2011). Language can mediate eye movement control within
100 milliseconds, regardless of whether there is anything to move the eyes to.
Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 190–200.
Assmann, P., & Summerfield, Q. (2004). The perception of speech under adverse
conditions. In Speech processing in the auditory system (pp. 231–308). New York:
Springer.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with
crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language,
59, 390–412.
Banse, R., & Scherer, K. R. (1996). Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 614–636.
Bard, E. G., Shillcock, R. C., & Altmann, G. T. M. (1988). The recognition of words after
their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context.
Perception and Psychophysics, 44(395), 408.
Bard, E. G., Sotillo, C., Kelly, M. L., & Aylett, M. P. (2001). Taking the hit: Leaving some
lexical competition to be resolved post-lexically. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 16(731), 737.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects
models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/
10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Ben-David, B. M., Chambers, C. G., Daneman, M., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Reingold, E.
M., & Schneider, B. A. (2010). Effects of aging and noise on real-time spoken word
recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 54(1), 243–262.
Benders, T. (2013). Mommy is only happy! Dutch mothers’ realisation of speech sounds
in infant-directed speech expresses emotion, not didactic intent. Infant Behavior and
Development, 36(4), 847–862.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. [Computer
software]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Bouwer, S. M., Mitterer, H., & Huettig, F. (2013). Discourse context and the recognition of
reduced and canonical spoken words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 519–539.
Bradlow, A. R., & Alexander, J. A. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for
speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2339–2349.
Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2002). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 272–284.
Bradlow, A. R., Kraus, N., & Hayes, E. (2003). Speaking clearly for children with learning
disabilities: Sentence perception in noise. Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 46,80–97.
Bradlow, A. R., Torretta, G. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1996). Intelligibility of normal speech I:
Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech
Communication, 20(3–4), 255–272.
Brouwer, S. M., & Bradlow, A. R. (2015). The temporal dynamics of spoken word
recognition in adverse listening conditions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45
(5), 1151–1160.
Buckler, H., Goy, H., & Johnson, E. K. (2018). What infant-directed speech tells us about
the development of compensation for assimilation. Journal of Phonetics, 66,45–62.
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A
new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and
language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), 84–107.
Cooper, R. P., & Aslin, R. N. (1990). Preference for infant-directed speech in the first
month after birth. Child Development, 61(5), 1584–1595.
Cooper, R. P., & Aslin, R. N. (1994). Developmental differences in infant attention to the
spectral properties of infant-directed speech. Child Development, 65(6), 1663–1677.
Cristià, A. (2010). Phonetic enhancement of sibilants in infant-directed speech. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), 424–434.
Cristia, A. (2013). Input to language: The phonetics and perception of infant-directed
speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(3), 157–170.
Cristia, A., & Seidl, A. (2014). The hyperarticulation hypothesis of infant-directed speech.
Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 913–934.
Dahan, D. (2010). The time course of interpretation in speech comprehension. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 121–126.
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2(3),
292.
Eaves, B. S., Jr, Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., & Shafto, P. (2016). Infant-directed
speech is consistent with teaching. Psychological Review, 123(6), 758.
Englund, K. T. (2005). Voice onset time in infant directed speech over the first six
months. First Language, 25(2), 219–234.
Fallon, M., Trehub, S. E., & Schneider, B. A. (2002). Children’s use of semantic cues in
degraded listening environments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
111(5), 2242–2249.
Ferguson, S. H., & Kewley-Port, D. (2002). Vowel intelligibility in clear and
conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 259–271.
Fernald, A. (1984). The perceptual and affective salience of mothers’ speech to infants.
The Origins and Growth of Communication,5–29.

Acoustical Society of America, 130(4), 2139–2152. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 272–284. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0075
3108–3118. Hearing Research, 46,80–97. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0250 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0080
Interspeech, 2816–2820. San Francisco, CA. Communication, 20(3–4), 255–272. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0085
Johnson, E. K., Lahey, M., Ernestus, M., & Cutler, A. (2013). A multimodal corpus of (5), 1151–1160. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0090
America, 134(6), EL534–EL540. the development of compensation for assimilation. Journal of Phonetics, 66,45–62. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0095
Experimental Psychology, 64(9), 1672–1682. language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), 84–107. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0100

Developmental Psychobiology, 28,45–57. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), 424–434. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0280 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0115

Language, 16(1), 55–68. Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 121–126. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0130
students? http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0295 The effects of simulation on prosodic modifications of infant-and http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0135 292.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0300 Institute of Technology. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0145 months. First Language, 25(2), 219–234.

Science, 10(1), 110–120. conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0310 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0155

Fernald, A. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers' speech to infants: Is
the melody the message? Child Development, 1497–1510.
Fernald, A., & Mazzie, C. (1991). Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults.
Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 209.
Fernald, A., Pinto, J. P., Swingley, D., Weinbergy, A., & McRoberts, G. W. (1998). Rapid
gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the 2nd year. Psychological
Science, 9(3), 228–231.
Fish, M. S., García-Sierra, A., Ramírez-Esparza, N., & Kuhl, P. K. (2017). Infant-directed
speech in English and Spanish: Assessments of monolingual and bilingual caregiver
VOT. Journal of Phonetics, 63,19–34.
Francis, A. L. (2010). Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects
perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing
speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(2), 501–516.
Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2009). Effects of intelligibility on working memory
demand for speech perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6),
1360–1374.
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration: Sequential
effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 438–453.
Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Representation and competition in the
perception of spoken words. Cognitive Psychology, 45(2), 220–266.
Gilbert, R. C., Chandrasekaran, B., & Smiljanic, R. (2014). Recognition memory in noise
for speech of varying intelligibility. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
135(1), 389–399.
Godoy, E., Koutsogiannaki, M., & Stylianou, Y. (2014). Approaching speech intelligibility
enhancement with inspiration from Lombard and clear speaking styles. Computer
Speech & Language, 28(2), 629–647.
Golinkoff, R. M., Can, D. D., Soderstrom, M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2015). (Baby) talk to
me: The social context of infant-directed speech and its effects on early language
acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 339–344.
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Cauley, K. M., & Gordon, L. (1987). The eyes have it:
Lexical and syntactic comprehension in a new paradigm. Journal of Child Language,
14(1), 23–45.
Graf Estes, K., & Hurley, K. (2013). Infant-directed prosody helps infants map sounds to
meanings. Infancy, 18(5), 797–824.
Grieser, D. L., & Kuhl, P. K. (1988). Maternal speech to infants in a tonal language:
Support for universal prosodic features in motherese. Developmental Psychology,
24(1), 14.
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm.
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 28(4), 267–283.
Harnsberger, J. D., Wright, R., & Pisoni, D. B. (2008). A new method for eliciting three
speaking styles in the laboratory. Speech Communication, 50(4), 323–336.
Hazan, V., & Baker, R. (2011). Acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech produced
with communicative intent to counter adverse listening conditions. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 130(4), 2139–2152.
Hazan, V., & Markham, D. (2004). Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for
adults and children. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(5),
3108–3118.
Hintz, F., & Scharenborg, O. E. (2016). The effect of background noise on the activation
of phonological and semantic information during spoken-word recognition.
Interspeech, 2816–2820. San Francisco, CA.
Hollich, G. (2005). Supercoder: A program for coding preferential looking version 1.5.
[Computer software]. West Lafayette: Purdue University.
Johnson, E. K., Lahey, M., Ernestus, M., & Cutler, A. (2013). A multimodal corpus of
speech to infant and adult listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 134(6), EL534–EL540.
Johnson, E. K., McQueen, J. M., & Huettig, F. (2011). Toddlers' language-mediated
visual search: They need not have the words for it. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 64(9), 1672–1682.
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech
intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(5), 1337–1351.
Kaplan, P. S., Goldstein, M. H., Huckeby, E. R., & Panneton Cooper, R. (1995).
Habituation, sensitization, and infants’ responses to motherese speech.
Developmental Psychobiology, 28,45–57.
Keerstock, S., & Smiljanic, R. (2018). Effects of intelligibility on within- and cross-modal
sentence recognition memory for native and non-native listeners. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 144(5), 2871–2881.
Kemler-Nelson, D. G., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Jusczyk, P. W., & Cassidy, K. W. (1989). How the
prosodic cues in motherese might assist language learning. Journal of Child
Language, 16(1), 55–68.
Knoll, M., Scharrer, L., & Costall, A. (2009). Are actresses better simulators than female
students? The effects of simulation on prosodic modifications of infant-and
foreigner-directed speech. Speech Communication, 51(3), 296–305.
Krause, J. C. (2001). Properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal rates and
implications for intelligibility enhancement Doctoral Dissertation. Massachusetts:
Institute of Technology.
Krause, J. C., & Braida, L. D. (2004). Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear
speech at normal speaking rates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
115(1), 362–378.
Kuhl, P. K. (2007). Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain? Developmental
Science, 10(1), 110–120.
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V.,
Ryskina, V. L., et al. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language
addressed to infants. Science, 277(5326), 684–686.

---

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in
Linear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 2.0-30. https://CRAN.R-project.
org/package=lmerTest.
Lam, J., & Tjaden, K. (2013). Intelligibility of clear speech: Effect of instruction. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(5), 1429–1440.
Lam, J., Tjaden, K., & Wilding, G. (2012). Acoustics of clear speech: Effect of instruction.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(6), 1807–1821.
Liss, J. M., Spitzer, S., Caviness, J. N., Adler, C., & Edwards, B. (1998). Syllabic strength
and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104(4), 2457–2466.
Liu, H. M., Kuhl, P. K., & Tsao, F. M. (2003). An association between mothers’ speech
clarity and infants’ speech discrimination skills. Developmental Science, 6(3).
Liu, S., & Zeng, F. G. (2006). Temporal properties in clear speech perception. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(1), 424–432.
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood
activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1.
Maniwa, K., Jongman, A., & Wade, T. (2009). Acoustic characteristics of clearly spoken
English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(6),
3962–3973.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1984). Function and process in spoken word recognition: A
tutorial review. In Attention and performance: Control of language processes
(pp. 125–150). Erlbaum.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Zwitserlood, P. (1989). Accessing spoken words: The importance
of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and
performance, 15(3), 576.
Martin, A., Igarashi, Y., Jincho, N., & Mazuka, R. (2016). Utterances in infant-directed
speech are shorter, not slower. Cognition, 156,52–59.
Martin, A., Utsugi, A., & Mazuka, R. (2014). The multidimensional nature of
hyperspeech: Evidence from Japanese vowel devoicing. Cognition, 132(2),
216–228.
Mattys, S. L., Brooks, J., & Cooke, M. (2009). Recognizing speech under a processing
load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology, 59(3),
203–243.
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in
adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8),
953–978.
Mattys, S. L., White, L., & Melhorn, J. F. (2005). Integration of multiple speech
segmentation cues: a hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 134(4), 477.
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception.
Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.
McCoy, F. N., McCoy, S. L., Tun, P. A., Cox, L. C., Colangelo, M., Stewart, R. A.,
Wingfield, A., et al. (2005). Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects
on older adults’ memory for speech. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology Section A, 58(1), 22–33.
McMurray, B., Clayards, M. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Tracking the time
course of phonetic cue integration during spoken word recognition. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1064–1071.
McMurray, B., Kovack-Lesh, K. A., Goodwin, D., & McEchron, W. (2013). Infant directed
speech and the development of speech perception: Enhancing development or an
unintended consequence? Cognition, 129(2), 362–378.
McQueen, J. M. (2007). Eight questions about spoken-word recognition. The Oxford
Handbook of Psycholinguistics,37–53.
Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function
of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(5), 329.
Morgan, S., & Ferguson, S. H. (2017). Judgments of emotion in clear and conversational
speech by young adults with normal hearing and older adults with hearing
impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 60(8), 1–10.
Nittrouer, S., & Boothroyd, A. (1990). Context effects in phoneme and word recognition
by young children and older adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 87(6), 2705–2715.
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition.
Cognition, 52(3), 189–234.
Orfanidou, E., Davis, M. H., Ford, M. A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2011). Perceptual and
response components in repetition priming of spoken words and pseudowords. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(1), 96–121.
Piazza, E. A., Iordan, M. C., & Lew-Williams, C. (2017). Mothers consistently alter their
unique vocal fingerprints when communicating with infants. Current Biology, 27(1–
6).
Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I., & Braida, L. D. (1985). Speaking clearly for the hard of
hearing I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 28(1), 96–103.
Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I., & Braida, L. D. (1986). Speaking clearly for the hard of
hearing II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 29(4), 434–446.
Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I., & Braida, L. D. (1989). Speaking clearly for the hard of
hearing III: An attempt to determine the contribution of speaking rate to differences in
intelligibility between clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 32(3), 600–603.
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old
adults listen to and remember speech in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 97(1), 593–608.

Psychology Section A, 58(1), 22–33. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0400

unintended consequence? Cognition, 129(2), 362–378. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0410
Handbook of Psycholinguistics,37–53. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0415

of Speech and Hearing Research, 28(1), 96–103. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0450

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0455 Speech and Hearing Research, 29(4), 434–446.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0460 Language, and Hearing Research, 32(3), 600–603.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0485 Audiology, 47(supp. 2), S99–S105.

Society of America, 121(5), 3044. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0495

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0350 activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1.

of IDS on speech segmentation. Cognition, 160,98–102. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0510

R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rabbitt, P. M. (1968). Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 241–248.
Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., & Lunner, T. (2008). Cognition counts: A working
memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). International Journal of
Audiology, 47(supp. 2), S99–S105.
RStudio Team (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio Inc..
http://www.rstudio.com/.
Scarborough, R., Dmitrieva, O., Hall-Lew, L., Zhao, Y., & Brenier, J. (2007). An acoustic
study of real and imagined foreigner-directed speech. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 121(5), 3044.
Scherer, K. R., Johnstone, T., & Klasmeyer, G. (2003). Vocal expression of emotion. In
R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective
sciences (pp. 433–456). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime 1.0. [Computer Software].
Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Software Tools.
Schreiner, M. S., & Mani, N. (2017). Listen up! Developmental differences in the impact
of IDS on speech segmentation. Cognition, 160,98–102.
Smiljanić, R., & Bradlow, A. R. (2005). Production and perception of clear speech in
Croatian and English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(3),
1677–1688.
Smiljanić, R., & Bradlow, A. R. (2008). Temporal organization of English clear and
conversational speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(5),
3171–3182.
Smiljanić, R., & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener
factors in speaking style changes. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1),
236–264.
Smiljanic, R., & Gilbert, R. C. (2017). Acoustics of clear and noise-adapted speech in
children, young, and older adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 60(11), 3081–3096.
Smiljanic, R., & Sladen, D. (2013). Acoustic and semantic enhancements for children
with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(4),
1085–1096.
Soderstrom, M. (2007). Beyond babytalk: Re-evaluating the nature and content of
speech input to preverbal infants. Developmental Review, 27(4), 501–532.
Song, J. Y., Demuth, K., & Morgan, J. (2010). Effects of the acoustic properties of infantdirected speech on infant word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 128(1), 389–400.
Sundberg, U., & Lacerda, F. (1999). Voice onset time in speech to infants and adults.
Phonetica, 56(3–4), 186–199.
Swingley, D., & Aslin, R. N. (2000). Spoken word recognition and lexical representation
in very young children. Cognition, 76(2), 147–166.
Swingley, D. (2009). Contributions of infant word learning to language development.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,
364(1536), 3617–3632.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Magnuson, J. S., Dahan, D., & Chambers, C. (2000). Eye movements
and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking
hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 29(6), 557–580.
Tang, P., Xu Rattanasone, N., Yuen, I., & Demuth, K. (2017). Phonetic enhancement of
Mandarin vowels and tones: Infant-directed speech and Lombard speech. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(2), 493–503.
Tjaden, K., Kain, A., & Lam, J. (2014). Hybridizing Conversationalersational and clear
speech to investigate the source of increased intelligibility in speakers with
Parkinson's disease. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(4),
1191–1205.
Uchanski, R. M., Choi, S. S., Braida, L. D., Reed, C. M., & Durlach, N. I. (1996).
Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing IV: Further studies of the role of speaking
rate. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39(3), 494–509.
Van der Feest, S. V. H., Blanco, C. P., & Smiljanic, R. (November, 2016; in preparation).
Effects of speaking style and semantic context on online word recognition in young
children. Poster presented at the 41th Boston university conference on language
development. Boston, MA
Van der Feest, S. V. H., & Johnson, E. K. (2016). Input-driven differences in toddlers’
perception of a disappearing phonological contrast. Language Acquisition, 23(2),
89–111.
Van Engen, K. J. (2017). Clear speech and lexical competition in younger and older adult
listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(2), 1067–1077.
Van Engen, K. J., Chandrasekaran, B., & Smiljanic, R. (2012). Effects of speech clarity
on recognition memory for spoken sentences. PLoS One, 7(9) e43753.
Wang, Y., Seidl, A., & Cristia, A. (2016). 11 Acoustic characteristics of infant-directed
speech as a function of prosodic typology. Dimensions of Phonological Stress, 311.
Welby, P. (2007). The role of early fundamental frequency rises and elbows in French
word segmentation. Speech Communication, 49(1), 28–48.
Werker, J. F., & McLeod, P. J. (1989). Infant preference for both male and female infantdirected talk: A developmental study of attentional and affective responsiveness.
Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 43(2), 230.
Werker, J. F., Pons, F., Dietrich, C., Kajikawa, S., Fais, L., & Amano, S. (2007). Infantdirected speech supports phonetic category learning in English and Japanese.
Cognition, 103(1), 147–162.

Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0095-4470(18)30018-4/h0395