Spectral and temporal changes to speech produced in the presence of energetic and informational maskers.

Talkers change the way they speak in noisy conditions. For energetic maskers, speech production changes are relatively well-understood, but less is known about how informational maskers such as competing speech affect speech production. The current study examines the effect of energetic and informational maskers on speech production by talkers speaking alone or in pairs. Talkers produced speech in quiet and in backgrounds of speech-shaped noise, speech-modulated noise, and competing speech. Relative to quiet, speech output level and fundamental frequency increased and spectral tilt flattened in proportion to the energetic masking capacity of the background. In response to modulated backgrounds, talkers were able to reduce substantially the degree of temporal overlap with the noise, with greater reduction for the competing speech background. Reduction in foreground-background overlap can be expected to lead to a release from both energetic and informational masking for listeners. Passive changes in speech rate, mean pause length or pause distribution cannot explain the overlap reduction, which appears instead to result from a purposeful process of listening while speaking. Talkers appear to monitor the background and exploit upcoming pauses, a strategy which is particularly effective for backgrounds containing intelligible speech.

[1]  K. D. Kryter Effects of Ear Protective Devices on the Intelligibility of Speech in Noise , 1946 .

[2]  M. Gardner Effect of Noise, System Gain, and Assigned Task on Talking Levels in Loudspeaker Communication , 1966 .

[3]  J J O'NEILL,et al.  Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility of words and phrases , 1958, The Laryngoscope.

[4]  T W Tillman,et al.  Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Relations of sex and dialect to reduction , 1994, Speech Communication.

[6]  P. Lieberman,et al.  Fundamental frequency and vowel perception. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[8]  B. Lindblom,et al.  Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels , 1994 .

[9]  Jon Barker,et al.  Modelling speaker intelligibility in noise , 2007, Speech Commun..

[10]  V C Tartter,et al.  Some acoustic effects of listening to noise on speech production. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  D S Brungart,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Terrance M. Nearey,et al.  Modeling the perception of frequency-shifted vowels , 2002, INTERSPEECH.

[13]  P. Boersma ACCURATE SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY AND THE HARMONICS-TO-NOISE RATIO OF A SAMPLED SOUND , 1993 .

[14]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Mark B. Gardner Effect of Noise on Listening Levels in Conference Telephony , 1964 .

[16]  J. Bird Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. , 1997 .

[17]  P. Boersma Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 4.4.24) , 2006 .

[18]  J. M. Pickett,et al.  Effects of Vocal Force on the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1956 .

[19]  Nina Kraus,et al.  Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: sentence perception in noise. , 2003, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[20]  M. Picheny,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[21]  J. W. Black,et al.  Equally contributing frequency bands in intelligibility testing. , 1959, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  H. Lane,et al.  Regulation of voice communication by sensory dynamics. , 1970, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Ann R Bradlow,et al.  Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  J. M. Pickett,et al.  Limits of Direct Speech Communication in Noise , 1958 .

[25]  J. Sundberg,et al.  Relationship between changes in voice pitch and loudness , 1988 .

[26]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  Analysis and Compensation of Lombard Speech Across Noise Type and Levels With Application to In-Set/Out-of-Set Speaker Recognition , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[27]  Martin Cooke,et al.  The contribution of changes in F0 and spectral tilt to increased intelligibility of speech produced in noise , 2009, Speech Commun..

[28]  M P Rastatter,et al.  The effects of multitalker and masker noise on fundamental frequency variability during spontaneous speech for children and adults. , 1985, The Journal of auditory research.

[29]  Hansjörg Mixdorff,et al.  Map task dialogs in noise : a paradigm for examining Lombard speech , 2007 .

[30]  H S Colburn,et al.  Reducing informational masking by sound segregation. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  M. Cooke,et al.  Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Maëva Garnier,et al.  Communiquer en environnement bruyant : de l’adaptation jusqu’au forçage vocal , 2007 .

[33]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Some acoustic-phonetic correlates of speech produced in noise , 1985, ICASSP '85. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[34]  T. Wiley,et al.  Recognition of speech produced in noise. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[35]  H. Lane,et al.  The Lombard Sign and the Role of Hearing in Speech , 1971 .

[36]  R. G. Klumpp,et al.  Effects of Ambient Noise and Nearby Talkers on a Face‐to‐Face Communication Task , 1962 .

[37]  Tadeusz Korn,et al.  Effect of Psychological Feedback on Conversational Noise Reduction in Rooms , 1954 .

[38]  Valerie Hazan,et al.  Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  W. S. Charlip,et al.  Effects of noise on selected speech parameters , 1969 .

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

[41]  D. Dubois,et al.  Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect. , 2010, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[42]  Richard Schulman,et al.  Dynamic and perceptual constraints of loud speech , 1985 .

[43]  Athanassios Protopapas,et al.  Intelligibility of modified speech for young listeners with normal and impaired hearing. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[44]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics , 1996, Speech Commun..

[45]  R. H. Bernacki,et al.  Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  T Letowski,et al.  Acoustical Properties of Speech Produced in Noise Presented Through Supra‐Aural Earphones , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[47]  R. Patel,et al.  The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[48]  Roy D Patterson,et al.  The interaction of vocal characteristics and audibility in the recognition of concurrent syllables. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  Paul Boersma,et al.  On-line formant shifting as a function of F0 , 2009, INTERSPEECH.

[50]  Francine R. Chen,et al.  Acoustic characteristics and intelligibility of clear and conversational speech at the segmental level , 1980 .

[51]  M. Cooke,et al.  Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[52]  D. Schum,et al.  Actual and predicted word-recognition performance of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[53]  Zinny S. Bond,et al.  A note on the acoustic-phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech , 1994, Speech Commun..

[54]  Jon Barker,et al.  The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  J C Junqua,et al.  The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  Jean-Claude Junqua,et al.  The Lombard effect: a reflex to better communicate with others in noise , 1999, 1999 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings. ICASSP99 (Cat. No.99CH36258).

[57]  Jean-Claude Junqua,et al.  Influence of the speaking style and the noise spectral tilt on the lombard reflex and automatic speech recognition , 1998, ICSLP.

[58]  Martin Cooke,et al.  Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[59]  Z S Bond,et al.  Acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech produced in noise and while wearing an oxygen mask. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.