Importance of envelope modulations during consonants and vowels in segmentally interrupted sentences.

The present study investigated the importance of overall segment amplitude and intrinsic segment amplitude modulation of consonants and vowels to sentence intelligibility. Sentences were processed according to three conditions that replaced consonant or vowel segments with noise matched to the long-term average speech spectrum. Segments were replaced with (1) low-level noise that distorted the overall sentence envelope, (2) segment-level noise that restored the overall syllabic amplitude modulation of the sentence, and (3) segment-modulated noise that further restored faster temporal envelope modulations during the vowel. Results from the first experiment demonstrated an incremental benefit with increasing resolution of the vowel temporal envelope. However, amplitude modulations of replaced consonant segments had a comparatively minimal effect on overall sentence intelligibility scores. A second experiment selectively noise-masked preserved vowel segments in order to equate overall performance of consonant-replaced sentences to that of the vowel-replaced sentences. Results demonstrated no significant effect of restoring consonant modulations during the interrupting noise when existing vowel cues were degraded. A third experiment demonstrated greater perceived sentence continuity with the preservation or addition of vowel envelope modulations. Overall, results support previous investigations demonstrating the importance of vowel envelope modulations to the intelligibility of interrupted sentences.

[1]  James J. Jenkins,et al.  Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels , 1983 .

[2]  J A Bashford,et al.  Use of speech-modulated noise adds strong “bottom-up” cues for phonemic restoration , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Jae Hee Lee,et al.  Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[5]  Daniel Fogerty,et al.  The role of vowel and consonant fundamental frequency, envelope, and temporal fine structure cues to the intelligibility of words and sentences. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Effects of periodic interruptions on the intelligibility of speech based on temporal fine-structure or envelope cues. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Daniel Fogerty,et al.  The relative importance of consonant and vowel segments to the recognition of words and sentences: effects of age and hearing loss. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Daniel Fogerty,et al.  Perceptual weighting of the envelope and fine structure across frequency bands for sentence intelligibility: effect of interruption at the syllabic-rate and periodic-rate of speech. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Daniel Fogerty,et al.  Perceptual contributions of the consonant-vowel boundary to sentence intelligibility. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Christian E Stilp,et al.  The redundancy of phonemes in sentential context. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[14]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  L. Humes,et al.  Perceptual contributions to monosyllabic word intelligibility: segmental, lexical, and noise replacement factors. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Robert F. Port,et al.  Meter and speech , 2003, J. Phonetics.

[18]  Steven Greenberg,et al.  Speech intelligibility derived from exceedingly sparse spectral information , 1998, ICSLP.

[19]  R L Freyman,et al.  Effect of consonant-vowel ratio modification on amplitude envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Fei Chen,et al.  Assessing the perceptual contributions of vowels and consonants to Mandarin sentence intelligibility. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Su-Hyun Jin,et al.  Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Christian E Stilp,et al.  Cochlea-scaled entropy, not consonants, vowels, or time, best predicts speech intelligibility , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  A. Liberman,et al.  Some Experiments on the Perception of Synthetic Speech Sounds , 1952 .

[25]  Daniel Fogerty Acoustic predictors of intelligibility for segmentally interrupted speech: temporal envelope, voicing, and duration. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[26]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  The influence of stop consonants' perceptual features on the Articulation Index model. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Kenneth N Stevens,et al.  Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  J A Bashford,et al.  Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations. , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  W. Strange,et al.  Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Fei Chen,et al.  Contributions of cochlea-scaled entropy and consonant-vowel boundaries to prediction of speech intelligibility in noise. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Michael J Owren,et al.  The relative roles of vowels and consonants in discriminating talker identity versus word meaning. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.