The effects of high presentation levels on consonant feature transmission.

The effect of high speech presentation levels on consonant recognition and feature transmission was assessed in eight participants with normal hearing. Consonant recognition in noise (0 dB signal-to-noise ratio) was measured at five overall speech levels ranging from 65 to 100 dB SPL. Consistent with the work of others, overall percent correct performance decreased as the presentation level of speech increased [e.g., G. A. Studebaker, R. L. Sherbecoe, D. M. McDaniel, and C. A. Gwaltney, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105(4), 2431-2444 (1999)]. Confusion matrices were analyzed in terms of relative percent information transmitted at each speech presentation level, as a function of feature. Six feature sets (voicing, place, nasality, duration, frication, and sonorance) were analyzed. Results showed the feature duration (long consonant duration fricatives) to be most affected by increases in level, while the voicing feature was relatively unaffected by increases in level. In addition, alveolar consonants were substantially affected by level, while palatal consonants were not. While the underlying mechanisms responsible for decreases in performance with level increases are unclear, an analysis of common error patterns at high levels suggests that saturation of the neural response and/or a loss of neural synchrony may play a role.

[1]  J R Dubno,et al.  Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[3]  A. M. D. de Manrique,et al.  Acoustic analysis and perception of Spanish fricative consonants. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Perceptual integration of the murmur and formant transitions for place of articulation in nasal consonants. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[6]  Lawrence J. Raphael,et al.  Acoustic cues for a fricative-affricate contrast in word-final position , 1980 .

[7]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Masking of Speech by Noise at High Sound Levels , 1958 .

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

[9]  J R Dubno,et al.  Frequency selectivity and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners with equivalent masked thresholds. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  H N Gutnick Consonant-feature transmission as a function of presentation level in hearing-impaired listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  R N Ohde The development of the perception of cues to the [m]-[n] distinction in CV syllables. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[13]  M F Dorman,et al.  Shifts in phonetic identification with changes in signal presentation level. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Perceptual invariance and onset spectra for stop consonants in different vowel environments , 1976 .

[15]  D. V. Tasell,et al.  Effects of stimulus level on perception of two acoustic cues in speech , 1981 .

[16]  M J Collins,et al.  Reverberation, masking, filtering, and level effects on speech recognition performance. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[17]  M. D. Wang,et al.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Charles W. Bray,et al.  Distortion in the Ear as Shown by the Electrical Responses of the Cochlea , 1938 .

[19]  P Howell,et al.  Production and perception of rise time in the voiceless affricate/fricative distinction. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  D Kewley-Port,et al.  Time-varying features as correlates of place of articulation in stop consonants. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  C Speaks,et al.  Effect of a competing message on synthetic sentence identification. , 1967, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  K. Stevens,et al.  Effect of burst amplitude on the perception of stop consonant place of articulation. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[24]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[25]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Effects of Intensity on Speech Recognition in High‐ and Low‐Frequency Bands , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[26]  J Jerger,et al.  Diagnostic significance of PB word functions. , 1971, Archives of otolaryngology.

[27]  Eric D Young,et al.  Effects of high sound levels on responses to the vowel /ε/ in cat auditory nerve , 1998, Hearing Research.

[28]  Consonant discrimination as a function of presentation level. , 1979 .

[29]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Effects of high presentation levels on recognition of low- and high-frequency speech , 2003 .

[30]  H K Vorperian,et al.  A developmental study of the perception of onset spectra for stop consonants in different vowel environments. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.