Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the lombard effect

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 588-608

  Garnier, Maëva ^a,b   Henrich, Nathalie ^c,d   Dubois, Daniéle ^a  

^a INSTITUT JEAN LE ROND D ALEMBERT   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c GIPSA LAB   (France)

^d UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

Communicative interaction; Headphones; Lombard effect; Noise; Speech production

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BIOMECHANICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRONICS; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; LIP; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NOISE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; BIOMECHANICS; ELECTRONICS; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LIP; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NOISE; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77953338462     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0138)     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Amazi, D. K., & Garber, S. R. (1982). The Lombard sign as a function of age and task. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 581-585.
2. Bagou, O., Fougeron, C., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2002). Contribution of prosody to the segmentation and storage of "words" in the acquisition of a new mini-language. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002 (pp. 159-162). Aix-en-Provence, France: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.
3. Bauer, J. J., Mittal, J., Larson, C. R., & Hain, T. C. (2006). Vocal responses to unanticipated perturbations in voice loudness feedback: An automatic mechanism for stabilizing voice amplitude. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2363-2371.
4. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2005). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.2.28) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org.
5. Brown, G., Anderson, A., Yule, G., & Shillcock, R. (1983). Teaching talk. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Burzynski, C. M., & Starr, C. D. (1985). Effects of feedback filtering on nasalization and self-perception of nasality. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 585-588.
7. Castellanos, A., Benedi, J. M., & Casacuberta, F. (1996). An analysis of general acoustic-phonetic features for Spanish speech produced with the Lombard effect. Speech Communication, 20, 23-35.
8. Christophe, A., Peperkamp, S., Pallier, C., Block, E., & Mehler, J. (2004). Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access: I. Adult data. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 523-547. (Pubitemid 39436151)
9. Conture, E. G. (1974). Some effects of noise on the speaking behavior of stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 714-723.
10. Davis, C., Kim, J., Grauwinkel, K., & Mixdorff, H. (2006). Lombard speech: Auditory (A), visual (V) and AV effects. In R. Hoffmann & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 248-252). Dresden, Germany: TUD Press.
11. Dejonckere, P. (1979). L'effet Lombard-Tarneaud objectivé [Objective Lombard-Tarneaud effect]. Electrodiagnostic-Therapie, 16, 87-95.
12. Delattre, P. (1966). Les dix intonations de base du francais [Ten basic intonation patterns of French].The French Review, 40(1), 1-14.
13. Dreher, J. J., & O'Neill, J. (1958). Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility for words and phrases. The Laryngoscope, 68, 539-548.
14. Egan, J. J. (1972). Psychoacoustics of the Lombard voice response. Journal of Auditory Research, 12, 318-324.
15. Elman, J. L. (1981). Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 45-50.
16. Fairbanks, G. (1954). Systematic research in experimental phonetics: A theory of speech mechanism as a servosystem. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 19, 133-139.
17. Garber, S. F., & Martin, R. R. (1977). Effects of noise and increased vocal intensity on stuttering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 233-240.
18. Garber, S. R., Siegel, G. M., & Pick, H. L., Jr. (1981). Regulation of vocal intensity in the presence of feedback filtering and amplification. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 104-108.
19. Gardner, M. B. (1966). Effect of noise system gain and assigned task on talking levels in loudspeaker communication. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 40, 955-965.
20. Garnier, M. (2007). Communiquer en environnement bruyant: De l'adaptation jusqu'au forcage vocal [Communication in noisy environments: From adaptation to vocal loading] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France. Retrieved from http://tel. archives-ouvertes.fr/ tel-00177691.
21. Garnier, M. (2008). May speech modifications in noise contribute to enhance audio-visible cues to segment perception? In R. Göcke, P. Lucey, & S. Lucey (Eds.), Proceedings of AVSP '08, the International Conference on Audio-Visual Speech Processing (pp. 95-100). ISCA Archive. Retrieved from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/avsp08/av08-095.html.
22. 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 Proceedings of Interspeech '06, the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 17-22). Retrieved from http://www.isca- speech.org/archive/interspeech-2006/i06-1862. html.
23. Garnier, M., Dohen, M., Loevenbruck, H., Welby, P., & Bailly, L. (2006). The Lombard effect: A physiological reflex or a controlled intelligibility enhancement? In H. C. Yehia, D. Demolin, & R. Laboissiere (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSP '06, the 7th International Seminar on Speech Production (pp. 255-262). Retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes. fr/hal-00214307.
24. Garnier, M., Henrich, N., Dubois, D., & Polack, J. D. (2006). Est-il valide de considérer l'effet Lombard comme un phénomène linéaire en fonction du niveau de bruit? In Proceedings of the 8th Congrès Français d'Acoustique (pp. xxx-xxx).
25. Guastavino, C., Katz, B., Levitin, D., Polack, J. D., & Dubois, D. (2005). Ecological validity of soundscape reproduction. Acta Acustica, 91, 333-341.
26. Hansen, J. H. (1996). Analysis and compensation of speech under stress and noise for environmental robustness in speech recognition. Speech Communication, 20, 151-173.
27. Hanson, B. A., & Applebaum, T. H. (1990). Robust speakerindependent word recognition using static, dynamic and acceleration feature: Experiments with Lombard and noisy speech. In Proceedings of ICASSP'90, the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 857-860). doi:10.1109/ICASSP.1990.115973.
28. Hood, J. D. (1962). Bone conduction: A review of the present position with especial reference to the contributions of Dr. Georg von Bekesy. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 34, 1325-1332.
29. Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology (pp. 209-242). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
30. Junqua, J. (1993). The Lombard reflex and its role on human listener and automatic speech recognizers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 510-524.
31. Junqua, J. C., Finckle, S., & Field, K. (1999). The Lombard effect: A reflex to better communicate with others in noise. In Proceedings of ICASSP '99, the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 2083-2086). doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.1999.758343.
32. Kadiri, N. (1998). Conséquences d'un environnement bruité sur la production de la parole [ Effect of noise exposure on speech production] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
33. Kim, S. (2005). Durational characteristics of Korean Lombard speech. In Proceedings of Eurospeech '05, the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 2901-2904). ISCA Archive. Retrieved from http://www. isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech-2005/i05-2901.html.
34. Korn, T. S. (1954). Effect of psychological feedback on conversational noise reduction in rooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26, 793-794.
35. Kryter, K. D. (1946). Effect of ear protective devices on the intelligibility of speech in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 18, 413-417.
36. Lallouache, M. T. (1990). Un poste "visage-parole": Acquisition et traitement de contours labiaux [A "face-speech" system: Acquisition and processing of lip contours]. In Proceedings of the 18th Journées d'Etudes sur la Parole (pp. 282-286).
37. Lane, H. L., Catania, A. C., & Stevens, S. S. (1961). Voice level: Autophonic scale, perceived loudness and effects of sidetone. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33, 160-167.
38. Lane, H., & Tranel, B. (1971). The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 677-709.
39. Lane, H. L., Tranel, B., & Sisson, C. (1970). Regulation of voice communication by sensory dynamics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47, 618-624.
40. Laukkanen, A. M., Mickelson, N. P., Laitala, M., Syrja, T., Salo, A., & Sihvo, M. (2004). Effects of Hear Fones on speaking and singing voice quality. Journal of Voice, 18, 475-487.
41. Leydon, C., Bauer, J. J., & Larson, C. R. (2003). The role of auditory feedback in sustaining vocal vibrato. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1575-1581.
42. Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403-439). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
43. Lindblom, B., Brownlee, S., Davis, B., & Moon, S. J. (1992). Speech transforms. Speech Communication, 11, 357-368.
44. Lombard, E. (1911). Le signe de l'élévation de la voix [The sign of voice raising]. Annales des Maladies de l'Oreille et du Larynx, 37, 101-119.
45. Mixdorff, H., Grauwinkel, K., & Vainio, M. (2006). Timedomain noise subtraction applied in the analysis of Lombard speech. In R. Hoffmann & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 94-97). Dresden, Germany: TUD Press.
46. Mokbel, C. (1992). Reconnaissance de la parole dans le bruit: Bruitage/débruitage [Speech recognition in noise: Noise degradation vs. cancellation] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications, Paris, France.
47. Nonaka, S., Takahashi, R., Enomoto, K., Katada, A., & Unno, T. (1997). Lombard reflex during PAG-induced vocalization in decerebrate cats. Neuroscience Research, 29, 283-289.
48. Patel, R., & Schell, K. W. (2008). The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 209-221.
49. 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, 96-103.
50. 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, 434-446.
51. Pick, H. L., Siegel, G. M., Fox, P. W., Garber, S. R., & Kearney, J. K. (1989). Inhibiting the Lombard effect. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 894-900.
52. Pittman, A. L., & Wiley, T. L. (2001). Recognition of speech produced in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 487-496.
53. Pörschmann, C. (2000). Influences of bone conduction and air conduction on the sound of one's own voice. Acta Acustica, 86, 1038-1045.
54. Schulman, R. (1989). Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 295-312.
55. Siegel, G. M., Pick, H. L., Jr., Olsen, M. G., & Sawin, L. (1976). Auditory feedback in the regulation of vocal intensity of preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 12, 255-261.
56. Sinnott, J. M., Stebbins, W. C., & Moody, D. B. (1975). Regulation of voice amplitude by the monkey. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58, 412-414.
57. Skowronski, M. D., & Harris, J. G. (2006). Applied principles of clear and Lombard speech for automated intelligibility enhancement in noisy environments. Speech Communication, 48, 549-558.
58. Södersten, M., Ternstrom, S., & Bohman, M. (2005). Loud speech in realistic environmental noise: Phonetogram data, perceptual voice quality, subjective ratings, and gender differences in healthy speakers. Journal of Voice, 19, 29-46.
59. Stanton, B. J., Jamieson, L. H., & Allen, G. D. (1988). Acoustic-phonetic analysis of loud and Lombard speech in simulated cockpit conditions. In Proceedings of ICASSP '88, the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 331-333). doi:10.1109/ICASSP.1988. 196583.
60. Sundberg, J., & Nordenberg, M. (2006). Effects of vocal loudness variation on spectrum balance as reflected by the alpha measure of long-term-average spectra of speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 453-457.
61. Ternström, S., Bohman, M., & Södersten, M. (2003). Very loud speech over simulated environmental noise tends to have a spectral peak in the F1 region. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 2296.
62. Ternström, S., Bohman, M., & Södersten, M. (2006). Loud speech over noise: Some spectral attributes, with gender differences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1648-1665.
63. Ternström, S., Södersten, M., & Bohman, M. (2002). Cancellation of simulated environmental noise as a tool for measuring vocal performance during noise exposure. Journal of Voice, 16, 195-206.
64. Ternström, S., Sundberg, J., & Collden, A. (1988). Articulatory F0 perturbations and auditory feedback. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 187-192.
65. Titze, I. R. (1989). On the relation between subglottal pressure and fundamental frequency in phonation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 901-906.
66. Traunmüller, H. (1981). Perceptual dimension of openness in vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 1465-1475.
67. Tufts, J., & Frank, T. (2003). Speech production in noise with and without wearing hearing protection. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1069-1080.
68. Van Heusden, E., Plomp, R., & Pols, L. C. W. (1979). Effect of ambient noise on the vocal output and the preferred listening level of conversational speech. Applied Acoustics, 12, 31-43.
69. Van Summers, W., Pisoni, B., Bernacki, H., Pedlow, R., & Stokes, M. (1988). Effect of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 917-928.
70. Von Bekezy, G. (1960). Experiments in hearing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
71. Welby, P. (2006). Intonational differences in Lombard speech: Looking beyond F0 range. In R.Hoffmann & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 763-766). Dresden, Germany: TUD Press.
72. Wenk, G., & Wiolland, F. (1982). Is French really syllabletimed? Journal of Phonetics, 10, 177-193.
73. Zeiliger, J., Serignat, J. F., Autesserre, D., & Meunier, C. (1994). BD-Bruit, une base de données de parole de locuteurs soumis á du bruit. In Proceedings of the 10th Journées d'Etude de la Parole (pp. 287-290).