Effects of Noise and Proficiency on Intelligibility of Chinese-Accented English

This study compared the intelligibility of native and foreign-accented English speech presented in quiet and mixed with three different levels of background noise. Two native American English speakers and four native Mandarin Chinese speakers for whom English is a second language each read a list of 50 phonetically balanced sentences (Egan, 1948). The authors identified two of the Mandarin-accented English speakers as high-proficiency speakers and two as lower proficiency speakers, based on their intelligibility in quiet (about 95% and 80%, respectively). Original recordings and noise-masked versions of 48 utterances were presented to monolingual American English speakers. Listeners were asked to write down the words they heard the speakers say, and intelligibility was measured as content words correctly identified. While there was a modest difference between native and high-proficiency speech in quiet (about 7%), it was found that adding noise to the signal reduced the intelligibility of high-proficiency accented speech significantly more than it reduced the intelligibility of native speech. Differences between the two groups in the three added noise conditions ranged from about 12% to 33%. This result suggests that even high-proficiency non-native speech is less robust than native speech when it is presented to listeners under suboptimal conditions.

[1]  T. Feustel,et al.  Capacity Demands in Short-Term Memory for Synthetic and .Natural Speech , 1983, Human factors.

[2]  L. L. Elliott Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Some comparisons of intelligibility of synthetic and natural speech at different speech‐to‐noise ratios , 1982 .

[4]  Birgit Harley,et al.  Age in second language acquisition , 1987 .

[5]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[6]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[7]  James Emil Flege,et al.  Factors affecting the recognition of words in a second language , 2000, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[8]  Carl C. Crandell,et al.  Speech Perception in Noise by Children for Whom English Is a Second Language , 1996 .

[9]  H. Lane Foreign Accent and Speech Distortion , 1962 .

[10]  G. Yeni-Komshian,et al.  The effects of speaker accent and target predictability on perception of mispronunciations. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[11]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[12]  S Buus,et al.  Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[13]  Tracey M. Derwing,et al.  Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners , 1995 .

[14]  Sander J. van Wijngaarden,et al.  Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech , 2001, Speech Commun..

[15]  James P. Egan On the Transmission and Confirmation of Messages in Noise , 1956 .

[16]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Perception of Synthetic Speech , 1997 .

[17]  J. Flege Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in English sentences. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  J. Flege,et al.  Production of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast by native speakers of English, Mandarin, and Spanish. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  James Emil Flege,et al.  The Identification of English Consonants by Native Speakers of Italian , 2000, Phonetica.

[20]  J. Flege Second Language Speech Learning Theory , Findings , and Problems , 2006 .

[21]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Capacity demands in short‐term memory for synthetic and natural word lists , 1981 .

[22]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. , 1987, Computer speech & language.

[23]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Tessa Bent,et al.  The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  K. Murphy,et al.  Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests, Second Ediction , 1998 .

[26]  J. P. Egan Articulation testing methods , 1948, The Laryngoscope.

[27]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[28]  D.B. Pisoni,et al.  Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[29]  Tracey M. Derwing,et al.  Processing Time, Accent, and Comprehensibility in the Perception of Native and Foreign-Accented Speech , 1995, Language and speech.

[30]  Upali Lockridge Factors affecting the recognition , 2006 .

[31]  Murray J. Munro,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF FOREIGN-ACCENTED SPEECH , 1998, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.