Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words.

A study was carried out to determine the relative importance to speech intelligibility of different intensities within the speech dynamic range. The functions that were derived are analogous to previous descriptions of the relative importance of different frequencies and are referred to here as intensity-importance functions (IIFs). They were obtained as follows. Sharply filtered bands of speech (NU6 monosyllabic words) were mixed with filtered noise and presented alone or in pairs at 19 signal-to-noise ratios (-25 to 41 dB). When paired bands were tested, the level and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of one band were held constant while the level and SNR of the other band were varied. The listeners were 100 normal hearers, organized into five 20-person groups. Each group provided speech recognition data for one of five frequency regions (141-562, 562-1122, 1122-1778, 1778-2818, and 2818-8913 Hz). Comparisons of the results for each group indicated that IIFs vary with frequency and SNR. Current methods for predicting intelligibility from physical measurements of speech audibility would need to be revised in order to take such findings into consideration.

[1]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  P M Zurek,et al.  Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  T Houtgast,et al.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Intelligibility of 1/3-octave speech: greater contribution of frequencies outside than inside the nominal passband. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  C Ludvigsen Prediction of speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and cochlearly hearing-impaired listeners. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  I. Hirsh,et al.  Masking of Tones by Bands of Noise , 1956 .

[7]  K. D. Kryter Methods for the Calculation and Use of the Articulation Index , 1962 .

[8]  A. Thornton,et al.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  R M Cox,et al.  Distribution of short-term rms levels in conversational speech. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Articulation index: Importance function in the intensity domain , 1990 .

[11]  L Magnusson,et al.  Predicted and Measured Speech Recognition Performance in Noise with Linear Amplification , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[12]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  An evaluation of some assumptions underlying the articulation index. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Frequency-importance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 word lists. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[16]  C M Rankovic Factors governing speech reception benefits of adaptive linear filtering for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Karl D. Kryter Speech Bandwidth Compression through Spectrum Selection , 1960 .

[18]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Frequency-importance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 word test. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  H. Fletcher,et al.  The Perception of Speech and Its Relation to Telephony , 1950 .

[20]  D Byrne,et al.  Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  H. K. Dunn,et al.  Statistical Measurements on Conversational Speech , 1940 .

[22]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[23]  H Müsch,et al.  Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. II. Measurement and prediction of consonant-discrimination performance. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  H Müsch,et al.  Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. I. Model structure. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  D D Dirks,et al.  Speech recognition and the Articulation Index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  I M Noordhoek,et al.  Measuring the threshold for speech reception by adaptive variation of the signal bandwidth. I. Normal-hearing listeners. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Ira J. Hirsh,et al.  The Intelligibility of Different Speech Materials , 1954 .

[28]  D D Dirks,et al.  Application of the Articulation Index and the Speech Transmission Index to the recognition of speech by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[29]  D D Dirks,et al.  Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Louis D. Braida,et al.  Evaluating the articulation index for auditory-visual input. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Speech Spectra for Six Recorded Monosyllabic Word Tests , 1993, Ear and hearing.