Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part IV, table of contents for Section 1, an introduction, reports on seven research projects and a list of publications.C.J. Lebel FellowshipDennis Klatt Memorial FundNational Institutes of Health Grant T32-DC00005National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00075National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00015National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00266National Institutes of Health Grant P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00776National Science Foundation Grant IRI 89-10561National Science Foundation Grant IRI 88-05680National Science Foundation Grant INT 90-2471

Xóõ click perception by English, Isizulu and Sesotho listeners

ABSTRACT Many, though not all, nonnative phonological contrasts pose discrimination difficulties. The Perceptual Assimilation Model attributes discrimination differences to listeners' assimilations of nonnative phones to their native phonologies, which vary across languages. We examined perception of two !Xóõ click contrasts by American English speakers and speakers of Isizulu and Sesotho, African click languages that lack the target contrasts. The Africans should assimilate !Xóõ clicks to native ones and discriminate accordingly; Americans should perceive them as nonspeech and discriminate them well. Isizulu's click system is richer than Sesotho's, so Isizulu speakers should perform better on at least one contrast. Americans should excel on contrasts that Africans assimilate to a single click. As predicted, Isizulu listeners assimilated !Xóõ clicks to native clicks most often, Americans heard nonspeech most often. Sesotho listeners were poorest on one contrast they had difficulty categorizing. Americans excelled on the other, which the Africans assimilated to a single click

!Xóõ Click Perception By English, Isizulu, And Sesotho Listeners

Many, though not all, nonnative phonological contrasts pose discrimination difficulties. The Perceptual Assimilation Model attributes discrimination differences to listeners\u27 assimilations of nonnative phones to their native phonologies, which vary across languages. We examined perception of two !Xóõ click contrasts by American English speakers and speakers of Isizulu and Sesotho, African click languages that lack the target contrasts. The Africans should assimilate !Xóõ clicks to native ones and discriminate accordingly; Americans should perceive them as nonspeech and discriminate them well. Isizulu\u27s click system is richer than Sesotho\u27s, so Isizulu speakers should perform better on at least one contrast. Americans should ex-cel on contrasts that Africans assimilate to a single click. As predicted, Isizulu listeners assimilated !Xóõ clicks to native clicks most often, Americans heard nonspeech most often. Sesotho listeners were poorest on one contrast they had difficulty categorizing. Americans excelled on the other, which the Africans assimilated to a single click

!Xóõ click perception by English, Isizulu, and Sesotho listeners

Many, though not all, non-native phonological contrasts pose discrimination difficulties. The Perceptual Assimilation Model attributes discrimination differences to listeners' assimilations of non-native phones to their native phonologies, which vary across languages. We examined perception of two !Xóõ click contrasts by American English speakers and speakers of Isizulu and Sesotho, African click languages that lack the target contrasts. The Africans should assimilate !Xóõ clicks to native ones and discriminate accordingly; Americans should perceive them as non-speech and discriminate them well. Isizulu's click system is richer than Sesotho's, so Isizulu speakers should perform better on at least one contrast. Americans should excel on contrasts that Africans assimilate to a single click. As predicted, Isizulu listeners assimilated !Xóõ clicks to native clicks most often, Americans heard non-speech most often. Sesotho listeners were poorest on one contrast they had difficulty categorizing. Americans excelled on the other, which the Africans assimilated to a single click

Digital Pathology Transformation in a Supraregional Germ Cell Tumour Network

Background: In this article we share our experience of creating a digital pathology (DP) supraregional germ cell tumour service, including full digitisation of the central laboratory. Methods: DP infrastructure (Philips) was deployed across our hospital network to allow full central digitisation with partial digitisation of two peripheral sites in the supraregional testis germ cell tumour network. We used a survey-based approach to capture the quantitative and qualitative experiences of the multidisciplinary teams involved. Results: The deployment enabled case sharing for the purposes of diagnostic reporting, second opinion, and supraregional review. DP was seen as a positive step forward for the departments involved, and for the wider germ cell tumour network, and was completed without significant issues. Whilst there were challenges, the transition to DP was regarded as worthwhile, and examples of benefits to patients are already recognised. Conclusion: Pathology networks, including highly specialised services, such as in this study, are ideally suited to be digitised. We highlight many of the benefits but also the challenges that must be overcome for such clinical transformation. Overall, from the survey, the change was seen as universally positive for our service and highlights the importance of engagement of the whole team to achieve success