Normal and Time-Compressed Speech

Short-term and long-term learning effects were investigated for the German Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA) using original and time-compressed fast speech in noise. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired participants completed six lists of the OLSA in five sessions. Two groups of normal-hearing listeners (24 and 12 listeners) and two groups of hearing-impaired listeners (9 listeners each) performed the test with original or time-compressed speech. In general, original speech resulted in better speech recognition thresholds than time-compressed speech. Thresholds decreased with repetition for both speech materials. Confirming earlier results, the largest improvements were observed within the first measurements of the first session, indicating a rapid initial adaptation phase. The improvements were larger for time-compressed than for original speech. The novel results on long-term learning effects when using the OLSA indicate a longer phase of ongoing learning, especially for time-compressed speech, which seems to be limited by a floor effect. In addition, for normal-hearing participants, no complete transfer of learning benefits from time-compressed to original speech was observed. These effects should be borne in mind when inviting listeners repeatedly, for example, in research settings.

[1]  B Hagerman,et al.  Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. , 1995, Scandinavian audiology.

[2]  Martin Hansen,et al.  Measurement and prediction of the acceptable noise level for single-microphone noise reduction algorithms , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[3]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Dissociations in perceptual learning revealed by adult age differences in adaptation to time-compressed speech. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Intelligibility of time-compressed speech: the effect of uniform versus non-uniform time-compression algorithms. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Perceptual adjustment to highly compressed speech: effects of talker and rate changes. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  B Hagerman,et al.  Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. , 1984, Scandinavian audiology.

[8]  P. Boersma.  Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.05) , 2009 .

[9]  Sandra Gordon-Salant,et al.  Recognition of rapid speech by blind and sighted older adults. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[10]  J. Mehler,et al.  Perceptual adjustment to time-compressed speech: A cross-linguistic study , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Yizhar Lavner,et al.  The effects of training length on the perceptual learning of time-compressed speech and its generalization. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  K. Wagener,et al.  Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise: Diseño, optimización y evaluación de la prueba Danesa de frases en ruido , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[13]  Yizhar Lavner,et al.  Perceptual Learning of Time-Compressed Speech: More than Rapid Adaptation , 2012, PloS one.

[14]  Esther Janse,et al.  Perceptual learning of time-compressed and natural fast speech. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Malcolm Slaney,et al.  MACH1: nonuniform time-scale modification of speech , 1998, Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP '98 (Cat. No.98CH36181).

[16]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Speech perception at positive signal-to-noise ratios using adaptive adjustment of time compression. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Joseph T. Devlin,et al.  On-line plasticity in spoken sentence comprehension: Adapting to time-compressed speech , 2010, NeuroImage.

[18]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Effects of stimulus variability and adult aging on adaptation to time-compressed speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Beverly A Wright,et al.  Contributions of procedure and stimulus learning to early, rapid perceptual improvements. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[21]  J. Mehler,et al.  Adaptation to time-compressed speech: Phonological determinants , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[23]  Karolina Smeds,et al.  Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios. , 2015, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[24]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[25]  W. Olsen,et al.  Average Speech Levels and Spectra in Various Speaking/Listening Conditions: A Summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) Report. , 1998, American journal of audiology.

[26]  B Hagerman,et al.  Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. , 1982, Scandinavian audiology.

[27]  S. Olsen,et al.  Learning effect when using the Danish Hagerman sentences (Dantale II) to determine speech reception threshold , 2005, International journal of audiology.