Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 54, Issue , 2015, Pages 100-107

  Schädler, Marc René ^a   Warzybok, Anna ^a   Hochmuth, Sabine ^a   Kollmeier, Birger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

ASR; matrix test; SII; speech in noise; Speech intelligibility predictions

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION; AUTOMATION; COMPREHENSION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACOUSTICS; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; AUTOMATION; COMPREHENSION; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; SPEECH RECOGNITION SOFTWARE;

EID: 84949322849     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1061708     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. ANSI 1969. ANSI S3.5-1969 American national standard methods for the calculation of the articulation index. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America.
2. ANSI 1997. American National Standard: Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America.
3. Auditec. 2006. CD101RW2, audio CD, Auditec, St. Louis, USA, 2515 http://www.auditec.com.
4. Bradley J.S., Sato H., Picard M. 2003. On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 3233-3244.
5. Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2002. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2801-2810.
6. Cooke M. 2006. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 119(3), 1562-1573.
7. Davis S. & Mermelstein P. 1980. Comparison of parametric representations for monosyllabic word recognition in continuously spoken sentences. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 28(4), 357-366.
8. Dreschler W. A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. Icra noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegium for rehabilitative audiology. Audiol, 40(3), 148-157.
9. ETSI standard document 2003. Speech Processing, Transmission and Quality aspects (STQ); Distributed speech recognition; Front-end feature extraction algorithm; Compression algorithm. ETSI Standard 201 108 V1.1.3.
10. Fletcher H. & Galt R.H. 1950. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am, 22(2), 89-151.
11. Fraunhofer IDMT. 2014. SIP Toolbox, http://www.idmt.fraunhofer.de/en/Service-Offerings/products-and-technologies/q-t/sip-toolbox.html
12. Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79-87.
13. Hochmuth S., Jürgens T., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2015. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests. Int J Audiol., 54, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1046502. [22 June 2015]
14. Hochmuth S., Brand T., Zokoll M.A., Zenker Castro F., Wardenga N. et al. 2012. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise. Int J Audiol, 51, 536-544.
15. Hohmann V. & Kollmeier B. 1995. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 97(2), 1191-1195.
16. Holube I. & Kollmeier B. 1996. Speech intelligibility prediction in hearing-impaired listeners based on a psychoacoustically motivated perception model. J Acoust Soc Am, 100(3), 1703-1716.
17. Jørgensen S. & Dau T. 2011. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 130(3), 1475-1487.
18. Jørgensen S., Ewert S.D. & Dau T. 2013. A multi-resolution envelopepower based model for speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 134(1), 436-446.
19. Jürgens T. & Brand T. 2009. Microscopic prediction of speech recognition for listeners with normal hearing in noise using an auditory model. J Acoust Soc Am, 126(5), 2635-2648.
20. Kollmeier B., Warzybok A., Hochmuth S., Zokoll M., Uslar V.N. et al. 2015. The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications and comparison across languages: A review. Int J Audiol, 54, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971.
21. Kryter K.D. 1962. Methods for the calculation and use of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am, 34(11), 1689-1697.
22. Leijon A. 2002. Estimation of sensory information transmission using a hidden Markov model of speech stimuli. Acta Acust united with Acustica, 88(3), 423-432.
23. Lochner J. & Burger J. 1964. The influence of reflections on auditorium acoustics. J Sound Vib, 1, 426-454.
24. Ludvigsen C. 1993. The use of objective measures to predict the intelligibility of hearing aid processed speech. In: J. Beilin and G. R. Jensen (eds.) Recent Developments in Hearing Instrument Technology. Kolding, Denmark: Scanticon, pp. 81-94.
25. Meyer B., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2009. Effect of speech-intrinsic variations on human and automatic speech phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 129, 388-403.
26. Meyer R.M. & Brand T. 2013. Comparison of different short-term speech intelligibility index procedures in fluctuating noise for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Acta acustica united with Acustica, 99, 442-456.
27. Ozimek E., Warzybok A. & Kutzner D. 2010. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise. Int J Audiol, 49, 444-454.
28. Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J. & Dreschler W.A. 2009. The dynamic range of speech, compression, and its effect on the speech reception threshold in stationary and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 126(6), 3236-3245.
29. Stadler S., Leijon A. & Hagerman B. 2007. An information theoretic approach to predict speech intelligibility for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. In: Proceedings of Interspeech 2007, 398-401.
30. Steeneken H.J.M. & Houtgast T. 1980. Physical method for measuring speechtransmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 67, 318-326.
31. Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C., Mackinnon R.C. & Moore B.C.J. 2011. The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in 'steady' background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 2874-2881.
32. Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C. & Moore B.C.J. 2012. Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 317-326.
33. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache. Teil II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence tests). Z Audiol, 38, 44-56.
34. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache. Teil III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test). Z Audiol, 38, 86-95.
35. Wagener K., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test). Z Audiol, 38, 4-15.
36. Warzybok A., Zokoll M., Wardenga N., Ozimek E., Boboshko M. et al. 2015. Development of the Russian Matrix Sentence Test. Int J Audiol, 54, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020969. [6 April 2015]
37. Warzybok A., Rennies J., Brand T., Doclo S. & Kollmeier B. 2013. Effects of spatial and temporal integration of a single early reflection on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 269-282.
38. Wong L.L.N., Ho A. H.S., Chua E.W.W. & Soli S.D. 2007. Development of the Cantonese Speech Intelligibility Index. J Acoust Soc Am, 121 (4), 2350-2361.
39. Young S., Evermann G., Gales M., Hain T., Kershaw et al. 2006. The HTK book (for HTK version 3.4). Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2(2), 2-3.