Intelligibility of Long-Distance Emergency Calling.

OBJECTIVE This study examined the identification of emergency calling across distance without electronic assistance, as in the event of an electric grid black-out or being stranded in the wilderness. METHODS Fifteen participants were callers and forty-one participants were recorders. Ten callers underwent an hour-long training in how to produce vocally healthy loud phonation, as well as, yodeled calls. Outdoors, the callers individually called out a set of single and multisyllable words, either yodeled or nonyodeled. Recorders and sound level meters were placed at four distances from the caller and were asked to select the called word as part of a closed-set identification task. RESULTS Distances greater than 100 m had significantly reduced call identification. Caller sex did not yield statistically significant differences in call identification at any distance. Participation in training only yielded a statistically significant difference in call identification at 170 m. For distances greater than 25 m, multisyllabic words were significantly better identified than single syllable words. Nonyodeled calls had a higher score by a statistically significant amount for ranges above 50 m than yodeled calls. Yodeled calls were found to have a greater sound level than nonyodeled calls at greater distances. The study results were consistent with the inverse square law. CONCLUSIONS Even a small amount of training can provide improvement in identification at long distances. Multisyllable words provide better identification than single syllable identification at distances beyond 25 m. Future research is recommended, focusing particularly on the amount of training necessary to improve identification and environmental effects on identification.

[1]  Robert Eklund,et al.  An acoustic analysis of the cattle call “kulning”, performed outdoors at Säter, Dalarna, Sweden , 2015 .

[2]  J. E. Piercy,et al.  Outdoor sound propagation over ground of finite impedance , 1976 .

[3]  I. Titze Physiologic and acoustic differences between male and female voices. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Detection of shouted speech in noise: human and machine. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  A. Lessac The use and training of the human voice : a bio-dynamic approach to vocal life , 1967 .

[6]  Julien Meyer,et al.  Speech Recognition in Natural Background Noise , 2013, PloS one.

[7]  Kaustubh Kalgaonkar,et al.  Talker-to-listener distance effects on speech production and perception. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[10]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Vocal effort compensation for MFCC feature extraction in a shouted versus normal speaker recognition task , 2019, Comput. Speech Lang..

[11]  Robert Eklund,et al.  Kulning: A study of the physiological basis for long-distance sound propagation in Swedish cattle calls , 2018 .

[12]  Annie Rialland,et al.  Phonological and phonetic aspects of whistled languages , 2005, Phonology.

[13]  Julien Meyer,et al.  Typology and acoustic strategies of whistled languages: Phonetic comparison and perceptual cues of whistled vowels , 2008, Journal of the International Phonetic Association.

[14]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Erratum: An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 339 (1955)] , 1955 .