Evaluating the effects of noise on voice communication systems

Noise Reduction in Speech Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 125-152

  Voiers, William D ^a   Sharpley, Alan D ^a   Panzer, Ira L ^a  

^a Dynastat   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955620720     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (31)

1. Egan, J.P., Articulation testing methods, Laryngoscope, 58, 955–991, 1948.
2. American National Standards Institute, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems (ANSI S3.2-1989) — A Revision of ANSI S3.2-1960, American Standards Association, New York.
3. Fairbanks, G., Test of phonemic differentiation: the Rhyme Test, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 30, 596–600, 1958.
4. House, A.S. et al., Articulation testing methods: consonantal differentiation with a closed response set, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 37, 158, 1965.
5. Voiers, W.D., Sharpley, A.D., and Panzer, I.L., A modified rhyme test with controlled item difficulty and foil attractiveness, in preparation.
6. Steeneken, H.J.M., On Measuring and Predicting Speech Intelligibility, H.J.M. Steeneken, Soesterberg, the Netherlands, 1992.
7. Miller, G.A. and Nicely, P.E., An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 30, 338–352, 1955.
8. Jackobson, R., Fant, C.G.M., and Halle, M., Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates, Tech. Rep. No. 13, Acoustics Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1952.
9. Peters, R.W., Dimensions of perception for consonants, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 35, 1985–1989, 1963.
10. Wicklegren, W.A. Distinctive features and errors in short-term memory for English consonants, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 39, 388–398, 1965.
11. Singh, S., Woods, D.R., and Becker, G.M., Perceptual structure of 22 prevocalic English consonants, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 52, 1698–1713, 1972.
12. Voiers, W.D., Diagnostic evaluation of speech intelligibility, in Speech Intelligibility and Speaker Recognition, Hawley, M.E., ed., Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, 1977, chap. 34.
13. Voiers, W.D., Evaluating processed speech using the Diagnostic Rhyme Test, Speech Technol., January/February, 30–39, 1983.
14. Voiers, W.D., Measurement of intrinsic deficiency in transmitted speech: The Diagnostic Discrimination Test (DDT), Proceedings of the 1982 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Paris, France, 1982.
15. Voiers, W.D., Three new diagnostic intelligibility tests for communication systems, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 95, 3011(A), 1994.
16. Schmidt-Nielsen, A., Intelligibility and acceptability testing for speech technology, in Applied Speech Technology, Syrdal, A., Bennett, R., and Greenspan, S., eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995, chap. 5.
17. Voiers, W.D., On the problems of reliability, sensitivity, and diagnostic value in tests of speech intelligibility, Conference preprints, AFCRL-IEEE Conference on Speech Communication and Processing, 1967.
18. Rothauser, E.H., Urbanek, G.E., and Pachl, W.P., Speech quality measurements. Final Scientific Report AF 61(052)–856, 1967.
19. Nakatani, L.H. and Dukes, K.D., A sensitive test of speech communication quality, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 53, 1083–1092, 1973.
20. Voiers, W.D., Diagnostic acceptability measure for speech communication systems, Proc. IEEE ICASSP, Hartford, CT, 1977.
21. Goodman, D.J. and Nash, R.D., Subjective quality of the same speech transmission conditions in seven different countries, IEEE Trans. Commun. COM-30, 642, 1982.
22. Combescure, P., Quality evaluation of speech coded at 32 kbit/sec by means of degradation category ratings, Proc. ICASSP 82 (International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing), Vol. 2, Paris, May 1982.
23. Voiers, W.D., Subjective criteria of speech acceptability, in An Analysis of Objective Measures for User Acceptance of Voice Communication Systems, Barnwell, T.P. and Voiers, W.D., eds., Defense Communications Agency Report DCA100-78-C-0003, 1979, chaps. 2 and 5 (reproduced in Quackenbush, S.R., Barnwell, T.P., and Clements, M.A., Objective Measures of Speech Quality, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988).
24. International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication Standardization Sector, Recommendation P.800, Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality, August 1996.
25. International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication Standardization Sector, Recommendation P.830, Methods for objective and subjective assessment of quality, February 1996.
26. Panzer, I.L., Sharpley, A.D., and Voiers, W.D., A comparison of subjective methods for evaluating speech quality, in Speech and Audio Coding for Wireless and Network Applications, Atal, B.S., Cuperman, V., and Gersho, A., eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1993, chap. 8.
27. McDermott, B.J., Multidimensional analysis of circuit quality judgments, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 45, 774–781, 1969.
28. Voiers, W. D., Effects of selected forms of degradation on speech acceptability and its perceptual correlates, in An Analysis of Objective Measures for User Acceptance of Voice Communication Systems, Barnwell, T. P. and Voiers, W. D., eds., Defense Communications Agency Report DCA100-78-C-0003, 1979, chap. 5 (reproduced in Quackenbush, S.R., Barnwell, T.P., and Clements, M.A., Objective Measures of Speech Quality, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988).
29. Quackenbush, S.R., Barnwell, T.P., and Clements, M.A., Objective Measures of Speech Quality, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
30. Kreiman, J. et al., Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research, J. Speech Hear. Res., 36, 21–40, 1993.
31. Attneave, F., Applications of Information Theory to Psychology: A Summary of Basic Concepts, Methods, and Results, Henry Holt, New York, 1959.