PhonBank Clinical English PERCEPT-R Corpus


Nina Benway
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Syracuse University

website
Jonathan Preston
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Syracuse University

website

Elaine Hitchcock
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Montclair State University

website
Tara McAllister
Communication Sciences and Disorders
New York University

website
Participants: 280, ages 6-17, some adults
Type of Study: clinical, cross-sectional
Location: USA
Media type: audio
DOI: doi:10.21415/0JPJ-X403

Browsable transcripts

Phon data

CHAT data

Link to media folder

Citation information

  1. Benway, N. R., Preston, J. L., Hitchcock, E. R., Salekin, A., Sharma, H., & McAllister, T. (2022). PERCEPT-R: An Open-Access American English Child/Clinical Speech Corpus Specialized for the Audio Classification of /ɹ/. INTERSPEECH 2022: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), Incheon, Republic of Korea.
  2. McAllister Byun, T., Hitchcock, E. R., & Ferron, J. (2017). Masked visual analysis: Minimizing type I error in visually guided single-case design for communication disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(6), 1455-1466.
  3. McAllister Byun, T., & Campbell, H. (2016). Differential effects of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual speech errors. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 567.
  4. McAllister Byun, T. (2017). Efficacy of visual–acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors: A single-subject randomization study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(5), 1175-1193.
  5. McAllister, T., Hitchcock, E. R., & Ortiz, J. A. (2021). Computer-assisted challenge point intervention for residual speech errors. Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups, 6(1), 214-229.
  6. Ayala, S.A., Eads, A., Kabakoff, H., Swartz, M., Shiller, D.M., Hill, J., Hitchcock, E.R., Preston, J.L., & McAllister, T. (Under review). Auditory and Somatosensory Development for Speech in Later Childhood. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/BKASM
  7. McAllister, T., Preston, J. L., Hitchcock, E. R., & Hill, J. (2020). Protocol for correcting residual errors with spectral, ultrasound, traditional speech therapy randomized controlled trial (C-RESULTS RCT). BMC Pediatrics, 20(1), 1-14.
  8. Benway, N. R., Hitchcock, E. R., McAllister, T., Feeny, G. T., Hill, J., & Preston, J. L. (2021). Comparing biofeedback types for children with residual/ɹ/errors in American English: A single-case randomization design. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(4), 1819-1845.
  9. McAllister Byun, T., Swartz, M. T., Halpin, P. F., Szeredi, D., & Maas, E. (2016). Direction of attentional focus in biofeedback treatment for /r/ misarticulation. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 51(4), 384-401.
  10. Hitchcock, E. R., McAllister Byun, T., Swartz, M., & Lazarus, R. (2017). Efficacy of electropalatography for treating misarticulation of /r/. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(4), 1141-1158.
  11. Campbell, H., Harel, D., Hitchcock, E., & McAllister Byun, T. (2017). Selecting an acoustic correlate for automated measurement of American English rhotic production in children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(6), 635-643.
  12. Hitchcock, E. R., & McAllister Byun, T. (2015). Enhancing generalisation in biofeedback intervention using the challenge point framework: A case study. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 29(1), 59-75.
  13. Preston, J. L., Hitchcock, E. R., & Leece, M. C. (2020). Auditory perception and ultrasound biofeedback treatment outcomes for children with residual/ɹ/distortions: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(2), 444-455.
  14. Preston, J. L., & Edwards, M. L. (2007). Phonological processing skills of adolescents with residual speech sound errors. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(4), 297-308.
  15. Preston, J. L., Hull, M., & Edwards, M. L. (2013). Preschool speech error patterns predict articulation and phonological awareness outcomes in children with histories of speech sound disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(2), 173-184.
  16. McAllister, T., Eads, A., Kabakoff, H., Scott, M., Boyce, S., Whalen, D. H., & Preston, J. L. (2022). Baseline Stimulability Predicts Patterns of Response to Traditional and Ultrasound Biofeedback Treatment for Residual Speech Sound Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 1-21.
  17. Sjolie, G. M., Leece, M. C., & Preston, J. L. (2016). Acquisition, retention, and generalization of rhotics with and without ultrasound visual feedback. Journal of Communication Disorders, 64, 62-77.
  18. Peterson, L., Savarese, C., Campbell, T., Ma, Z., Simpson, K. O., & McAllister, T. (2022). telepractice treatment of residual rhotic errors using app-based biofeedback: A pilot study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(2), 256-274.
  19. McAllister Byun, T., Hitchcock, E. R., & Swartz, M. T. (2014). Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: Evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(6), 2116-2130.
  20. McAllister Byun, T., & Hitchcock, E. R. (2012). Investigating the use of traditional and spectral biofeedback approaches to intervention for /r/ misarticulation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(3), 207-221.

In accordance with TalkBank rules, any use of data from this corpus must be accompanied by at least one of the above references. Please cite all papers relevant to the portion of the corpus you used in your own research.

Project Description

This corpus consists of 22 sub-corpora drawing on 19 published/under review studies and three as yet unpublished studies of the development and treatment of American English rhotics. The majority of talkers in this corpus were children and adolescents aged 6-17; a small number of adult talkers are also included. In some cases, participants are characterized by typical speech production; other participants were recruited for suspected speech sound disorder (SSD) affecting rhotic production or for a history of SSD at preschool age. Participants were required to speak American English as a dominant or equally dominant language. They were recruited from sites in New York and New Jersey, USA. Information about the number of participants in each study, their classification, and their range of ages can be found in these tables . Individual-level age and sex information are provided as part of the corpus records.

The recordings presented here are isolated syllables or words, as well as some multi-word phrases, elicited in the context of probe lists. Table 1 contains information about the nature of elicitation (e.g., via imitation, reading, or picture naming). Most of the component studies were conducted in the lab setting, with audio recorded using a participant-worn headset (e.g., AKG C520) or lavalier mic (e.g., Sennheiser MKE 2). Each record in the corpus contains an orthographic and IPA target record for the utterance in question. In lieu of IPA transcription of the participant’s actual production, the records contain quantitative data representing listeners’ perceptual ratings of the accuracy of the rhotic in each utterance (maximum one rhotic per utterance). In some cases, these ratings were provided by untrained listeners recruited online through the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform (see McAllister Byun, 2017, for an example). In other cases, the ratings were provided by lab-based listeners, either speech-language pathologists or students in speech-language pathology programs (see example in Benway et al., 2021). Table 1 .indicates the rater type for each component study.

In a subset of cases, participants were engaged in intervention targeting production of American English rhotics. In these cases, recordings are labeled to reflect the time point in the study (e.g., before, during, and after treatment). Various types of treatment were provided across the component studies, including motor-based treatment and various types of biofeedback treatment (ultrasound, visual-acoustic, and/or electropalatographic). For studies with a treatment component, Table 2 contains information about the type and duration of the intervention provided.

For additional detail, see publication (1) listed below, or any of the publications linked to sub-corpora, as indicated in these tables .

The files that make up this corpus are formatted for use with Phon software. An additional version of the same corpus, formatted for ease of use in training of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) systems, can be found in the Derived Corpora section at https://phon.talkbank.org/derived/.