Speaking in noise: How does the Lombard effect improve acoustic contrasts between speech and ambient noise?

What makes speech produced in the presence of noise (Lombard speech) more intelligible than conversational speech produced in quiet conditions? This study investigates the hypothesis that speakers modify their speech in the presence of noise in such a way that acoustic contrasts between their speech and the background noise are enhanced, which would improve speech audibility. Ten French speakers were recorded while playing an interactive game first in quiet condition, then in two types of noisy conditions with different spectral characteristics: a broadband noise (BB) and a cocktail-party noise (CKTL), both played over loudspeakers at 86dB SPL. Similarly to (Lu and Cooke, 2009b), our results suggest no systematic ''active'' adaptation of the whole speech spectrum or vocal intensity to the spectral characteristics of the ambient noise. Regardless of the type of noise, the gender or the type of speech segment, the primary strategy was to speak louder in noise, with a greater adaptation in BB noise and an emphasis on vowels rather than any type of consonants. Active strategies were evidenced, but were subtle and of second order to the primary strategy of speaking louder: for each gender, fundamental frequency (f"0) and first formant frequency (F1) were modified in cocktail-party noise in a way that optimized the release in energetic masking induced by this type of noise. Furthermore, speakers showed two additional modifications as compared to shouted speech, which therefore cannot be interpreted in terms of vocal effort only: they enhanced the modulation of their speech in f"0 and vocal intensity and they boosted their speech spectrum specifically around 3kHz, in the region of maximum ear sensitivity associated with the actor's or singer's formant.

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

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

[3]  H. Pick,et al.  Inhibiting the Lombard effect. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  C. Darwin,et al.  Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: within and across-formant grouping by F0. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  B. J. Stanton,et al.  Acoustic-phonetic analysis of loud and Lombard speech in simulated cockpit conditions , 1988, ICASSP-88., International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[6]  T A Ricketts,et al.  The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Johan Sundberg,et al.  Effects of vocal loudness variation on spectrum balance as reflected by the alpha measure of long-term-average spectra of speech. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Liénard,et al.  Effect of vocal effort on spectral properties of vowels. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[11]  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.

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

[13]  Irene Velsvik Bele The speaker's formant. , 2006, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

[14]  R. Schulman,et al.  Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  I R Titze,et al.  Vocal intensity in speakers and singers. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  I R Titze,et al.  On the relation between subglottal pressure and fundamental frequency in phonation. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Maeva Garnier,et al.  May speech modifications in noise contribute to enhance audio-visible cues to segment perception? , 2008, AVSP.

[18]  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.

[19]  Marion Dohen,et al.  The Lombard Effect: a physiological reflex or a controlled intelligibility enhancement? , 2006 .

[20]  S R Garber,et al.  The Lombard sign as a function of age and task. , 1982, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[21]  G. Weismer,et al.  The effects of a flattened fundamental frequency on intelligibility at the sentence level. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[22]  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.

[23]  D. M. Green,et al.  Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Martin Cooke,et al.  Speech production modifications produced in the presence of low-pass and high-pass filtered noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  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.

[26]  John G. Harris,et al.  Applied principles of clear and Lombard speech for automated intelligibility enhancement in noisy environments , 2006, Speech Commun..

[27]  John J. Dreher,et al.  Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility of words and phrases , 1957, The Laryngoscope.

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

[29]  Kentaro Ishizuka,et al.  Effect of F0 fluctuation and amplitude modulation of natural vowels on vowel identification in noisy environments , 2002, INTERSPEECH.

[30]  Maria Södersten,et al.  Cancellation of simulated environmental noise as a tool for measuring vocal performance during noise exposure. , 2002, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

[31]  H. Traunmüller,et al.  Acoustic effects of variation in vocal effort by men, women, and children. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Oliver Jung On the Lombard Effect Induced by Vehicle Interior Driving Noises, Regarding Sound Pressure Level and Long-Term Average Speech Spectrum , 2012 .

[33]  Q. Summerfield,et al.  Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: vowels with different fundamental frequencies. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Francisco Casacuberta,et al.  An analysis of general acoustic-phonetic features for Spanish speech produced with the Lombard effect , 1996, Speech Commun..

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

[36]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Factors affecting the benefits of high-frequency amplification. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[37]  Jean C. Krause,et al.  Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  C. M. Marin,et al.  Segregation of concurrent sounds. II: Effects of spectral envelope tracing, frequency modulation coherence, and frequency modulation width. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  C. Darwin,et al.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  D. M. Green,et al.  Intensity discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  P E Souza,et al.  Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[42]  C. Darwin,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a Human Experimental Psychology Perceptual Grouping of Speech Components Differing in Fundamental Frequency and Onset-time Perceptual Grouping of Speech Components Differing in Fundamental Frequency and Onset-time , 2022 .