Improving objective intelligibility prediction by combining correlation and coherence based methods with a measure based on the negative distortion ratio

Speech Communication

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 503-515

  Gómez, Angel M ^a,b   Schwerin, Belinda ^b   Paliwal, Kuldip ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Coherence based methods; Correlation based methods; Distance based methods; Negative spectral distortion; Objective measures; Speech enhancement; Speech intelligibility

Indexed keywords

COHERENCE-BASED METHOD; CORRELATION-BASED METHODS; DISTANCE-BASED METHODS; OBJECTIVE MEASURE; SPECTRAL DISTORTIONS;

CORRELATION METHODS; FORECASTING; SPEECH ENHANCEMENT; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VECTOR QUANTIZATION;

SPEECH RECOGNITION;

EID: 84155164651     PISSN: 01676393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2011.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. ANSI, 1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. Technical Report S3.5-1997.
2. N. Balakrishnan Handbook of the Logistic Distribution 1992 Dekker
3. Boldt, J.; Ellis, D. 2009. A simple correlation-based model of intelligibility for nonlinear speech enhancement and separation. In: Proc. EUPSIPCO 2009, Glasgow, Scotland, pp. 1849-1853.
4. C. Christiansen, M.S. Pedersen, and T. Dau Prediction of speech intelligibility based on an auditory preprocessing model Speech Commun. 52 7-8 2010 678 692
5. G. Carter, C. Knapp, and A. Nuttall Estimation of the magnitude-squared coherence function via overlapped fast fourier transform processing IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 21 1973 337 344
6. R. Drullman, J. Festen, and R. Plomp Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95 2 1994 1053 1064 (Pubitemid 24056370)
7. Falk, T.H.; Chan, W.-Y.; 2008. A non-intrusive quality measure of dereverberated speech. In: Proc. Internat. Workshop on Acoustic Echo and Noise Control.
8. N. French, and J. Steinberg Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19 1 1947 90 119
9. J. Gibbons Nonparametric Statistical Inference second ed. 1985 Dekker
10. R. Goldsworthy, and J. Greenberg Analysis of speech-based speech transmission index methods with implications for nonlinear operations J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116 6 2004 3679 3689 (Pubitemid 40029948)
11. Gomez, A.; Schwerin, B.; Paliwal, K.; 2011. Objective intelligibility prediction of speech by combining correlation and distortion based techniques. In: Proc. ISCA European Conf. on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH), Florence, Italy.
12. Y. Hu, and P. Loizou A comparative intelligibility study of single-microphone noise reduction algorithms J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122 3 2007 1777 1786 (Pubitemid 47560539)
13. Y. Hu, and P. Loizou Evaluation of objective quality measures for speech enhancement IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 16 1 2008 229 238
14. ITU-T P.862, 2001. Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ): An objective method for end-to-end speech quality assessment of narrow-band telephone networks and speech codecs. ITU-T P.862 recommendation.
15. J.M. Kates On using coherence to measure distortion in hearing aids J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91 4 1992 2236 2244
16. J.M. Kates, and K.H. Arehart Coherence and the speech intelligibility index J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117 4 2005 2224 2237 (Pubitemid 40570480)
17. Kim, G.; Loizou, P.; 2010. Why do speech-enhancement algorithms not improve speech intelligibility. In: Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Process (ICASSP), Dallas, Texas, USA, vol. 1, pp. 4738-4741.
18. P. Loizou Speech Enhancement: Theory and Practice 2007 Taylor and Francis Boca Raton, FL
19. P. Loizou, and G. Kim Reasons why current speech-enhancement algorithms do not improve speech intelligibility and suggested solutions IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 19 1 2011 47 56
20. C. Ludvigsen, C. Elberling, and G. Keidser Evaluation of a noise reduction method-comparison of observed scores and scores predicted from STI Scand. Audiol. Suppl. 38 1993 50 55 (Pubitemid 23362792)
21. J. Ma, Y. Hu, and P. Loizou Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125 5 2009 3387 3405
22. J. Ma, and P. Loizou Snr loss: A new objective measure for predicting the intelligibility of noise-suppressed speech Speech Commun. 53 3 2011 340 354
23. B. Moore, and B. Glasberg Suggested formulas for calculation auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74 3 1983 750 753 (Pubitemid 13019047)
24. Pearce, D.; Hirsch, H.; 2000. The aurora experimental framework for the performance evaluation of speech recognition systems under noisy conditions. In: Proc. of Internat. Conf. on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Beijing, China, pp. 29-32.
25. E. Rothauser IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17 3 1969 225 246
26. Scalart, P.; Filho, J.; 1996. Speech enhancement based on a priori signal to noise estimation. In: Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Process (ICASSP), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, vol. 2, pp. 629-632.
27. H. Silverman, and N. Dixon A comparison of several speech-spectra classification methods IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 24 1976 289 295 (Pubitemid 8016708)
28. H. Steeneken, and T. Houtgast A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67 1 1980 318 326 (Pubitemid 10136600)
29. C. Taal, R. Hendriks, R. Heusdens, and J. Jensen An algorithm for intelligibility prediction of time-frequency weighted noisy speech IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 19 7 2011 2125 2136