The contribution of changes in F0 and spectral tilt to increased intelligibility of speech produced in noise

Speech Communication

Volumn 51, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1253-1262

  Lu, Youyi ^a   Cooke, Martin ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

Author keywords

Intelligibility; Noise; Spectral tilt; Speech production

Indexed keywords

SPEECH PROCESSING;

FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL EFFECTS; RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION; SPECTRAL TILT; SPEECH PRODUCTION; SPEECH-SHAPED NOISE; TIME-FREQUENCY PLANES;

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

EID: 69849091637     PISSN: 01676393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2009.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Assmann P.F., and Nearey T.M. Identification of frequency-shifted vowles. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 124 (2008) 3203-3212
2. Assmann, P.F., Nearey, T.M., Scott, J.M., 2002. Modelling the perception of frequency-shifted vowels. In: Internat. Conf. on Spoken Lang. Proc., pp. 425-428.
3. Assmann P.F., and Katz W.F. Synthesis fidelity and vowel identification. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 117 (2005) 886-895
4. Barker J., and Cooke M.P. Modelling speaker intelligibility in noise. Speech Comm. 49 (2007) 402-417
5. Boersma P. Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a samples sound. Proc. Inst. Phonetic Sci. 17 (1993) 97-110
6. Bond Z.S., and Moore T.J. A note on the acoustic-phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech. Speech Comm. 14 (1994) 325-337
7. Cooke M.P. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 119 (2006) 1562-1573
8. Cooke M.P., Barker J., Cunningham S., and Shao X. An audio-visual corpus for speech perception and automatic speech recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 120 (2006) 2421-2424
9. Cox R.M., Alexander G.C., and Gilmore C. Intelligibility of average talkers in typical listening environments. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 81 (1987) 1598-1608
10. Dreher J.J., and O'Neill J. Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility for words and phrases. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 29 (1957) 1320-1323
11. Ferguson S.H., and Kewley-Port D. Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 112 (2002) 259-271
12. Garnier, M., Bailly, L., Dohen, M., Welby, P., Loevenbruck, H., 2006. An acoustic and articulatory study of Lombard speech: global effects on the utterance. In: Internat. Conf. on Spoken Lang. Proc., pp. 2246-2249.
13. Gordon-Salant S. Recognition of natural and time/intensity altered CVs by young and elderly subjects with normal hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 80 (1986) 1599-1607
14. Hansen J.H.L. Analysis and compensation of speech under stress and noise for environmental robustness in speech recognition. Speech Comm. 20 2 (1996) 151-170 (Special Issue on Speech Under Stress)
15. Hazan V., and Markham D. Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 116 (2004) 3108-3118
16. Hazan V., and Simpson A. The effect of cue-enhancement on the intelligibility of nonsense word and sentence materials presented in noise. Speech Comm. 24 (1998) 211-226
17. Jones C., Berry L., and Stevens C. Synthesized speech intelligibility and persuasion: speech rate and non-native listeners. Comput. Speech Lang. 21 (2007) 641-651
18. Junqua J.C. The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 93 (1993) 510-524
19. Kawahara, H., 1997. Speech representation and transformation using adaptive interpolation of weighted spectrum: vocoder revisited. In: Int. Conf. on Acoustics Speech and Sig. Proc., pp. 1303-1306.
20. Kawahara, H., 1998. Perceptual effects of spectral envelope and F0 manipulations using the STRAIGHT method. In: Proc. 135th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 103(5), p. 2776.
21. Kawahara H., Masuda-Katsuse I., and Cheveigné A. Restructuring speech representations using a pitch-adaptive time-frequency smoothing and an instantaneous-frequency-based F0 extraction: possible role of a repetitive structure in sounds. Speech Comm. 27 (1999) 187-207
22. Krause J.C., and Braida L.D. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 115 (2004) 362-378
23. Laures J.S., and Bunton K. Perceptual effects of a flattened fundamental frequency at the sentence level under different listening conditions. J. Comm. Disord. 36 (2003) 449-464
24. Lee, S.H., Jeong, H., 2007. Real-time speech intelligibility enhancement based on the background noise analysis. In: Proc. 4th Conf. on IASTED Internat. Conf.: Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition, and Applications, pp. 287-292.
25. Lu Y., and Cooke M.P. Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble and stationary noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 124 (2008) 3261-3275
26. Lu Y., and Cooke M.P. Speech production modifications produced in the presence of low-pass and high-pass filtered noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. (2009) 126
27. McLoughlin, I.V., Chance, R.J., 1997. LSP-based speech modification for intelligibility enhancement. In: Proc. 13th Internat. Conf. on Digital Signal Processing, Vol. 2, pp. 591-594.
28. Niederjohn R.J., and Grotelueschen J.H. The enhancement of speech intelligibility in high noise levels by high-pass filtering followed by rapid amplitude compression. IEEE Trans. ASSP-24 (1976) 277
29. Pisoni D.B., Bernacki R.H., Nusbaum H.C., and Yuchtman M. Some acoustic-phonetic correlates of speech produced in noise. Int. Conf. Acoustics Speech and Sig. Process (1985) 1581-1584
30. Pittman A.L., and Wiley T.L. Recognition of speech produced in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 44 (2001) 487-496
31. Ryalls J.H., and Lieberman P. Fundamental frequency and vowel perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 72 (1982) 1631-1634
32. Skowronski M.D., and Harris J.G. Applied principles of clear and Lombard speech for automated intelligibility enhancement in noisy environments. Speech Comm. 48 (2006) 549-558
33. Sommers M.S. Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. II. The effects of age and hearing impairment. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 101 (1997) 2278-2288
34. Summers W.V., Pisoni D.B., Bernacki R.H., Pedlow R.I., and Stokes M.A. Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analysis. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 84 (1988) 917-928
35. Steeneken, H.J.M., Hansen, J.H.L., 1999. Speech under stress conditions: overview of the effect on speech production and on system performance. In: Int. Conf. Acoustics Speech and Sig. Proc., pp. 2079-2082.
36. Tallal P., Miller S.L., Bedi G., Byma G., Wang X., Nagarajan S., Schreiner C., Jenkins W., and Merzenich M. Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science 271 (1996) 81-84
37. Tartter V.C., Gomes H., and Litwin E. Some acoustic effects of listening to noise on speech production. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 94 (1993) 2437-2440
38. Thomas, I.B., 1967. The second formant and speech intelligibility. In: Proc. Nut. Electronics Conf., Vol. 23, pp. 544-548.
39. Thomas I.B. The influence of first and second formants on the intelligibility of clipped speech. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 16 (1968) 182-185
40. Uchanski R.M., Geers A.E., and Protopapas A. Intelligibility of modified speech for young listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 45 (2002) 1027-1038
41. Watson P.J., and Schlauch R.S. The effect of fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of speech with flattened intonation contours. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 17 (2008) 348-355
42. Womack B., and Hansen J. Classification of speech under stress using target driven features. Speed Comm. 20 (1996) 131-150