Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityno feedback regarding the children’s performanceduring the voice identification task. Allactions – recording, listening and selecting –were logged by the computer program.ResultsTable 1 displays the mean correct own-voiceidentification for all 45 children on both testoccasions. The standard deviation reveals alarge variation within the groups; the performancevaries between 4 and 24 in both the firstand the second test. However, the average resultson both test occasions are well abovechance level. A closer look at the individualresults reveals that two children perform atchance level (or worse), while 12 children(27% of the children) perform with more than90% accuracy.Table 1. Mean correct responses on the first andsecond test, for both age groups (max score/test =24).First test Second testYounger 18.8 (SD: 5.5) 17.9 (SD: 6.2)Older 21.0 (SD: 2.2) 16.6 (SD: 5.5)Mean 19.7 (SD: 4.6) 17.3 (SD: 5.9)No difference was found between the youngerand the older children’s performance on thefirst test (t(37.2) = 1.829, p = 0.076) or on thesecond test (t(43) = 0.716, p = 0.478).For the older children, a significant differencewas found between the children’s performanceon the first test and their performanceon the second test (t(17) = 4.370, p