The Lombard effect observed in speech produced by cochlear implant users in noisy environments: A naturalistic study.

The Lombard effect is an involuntary response speakers experience in the presence of noise during voice communication. This phenomenon is known to cause changes in speech production such as an increase in intensity, pitch structure, formant characteristics, etc., for enhanced audibility in noisy environments. Although well studied for normal hearing listeners, the Lombard effect has received little, if any, attention in the field of cochlear implants (CIs). The objective of this study is to analyze speech production of CI users who are postlingually deafened adults with respect to environmental context. A total of six adult CI users were recruited to produce spontaneous speech in various realistic environments. Acoustic-phonetic analysis was then carried out to characterize their speech production in these environments. The Lombard effect was observed in the speech production of all CI users who participated in this study in adverse listening environments. The results indicate that both suprasegmental (e.g., F0, glottal spectral tilt and vocal intensity) and segmental (e.g., F1 for /i/ and /u/) features were altered in such environments. The analysis from this study suggests that modification of speech production of CI users under the Lombard effect may contribute to some degree an intelligible communication in adverse noisy environments.

[1]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  'houston, we have a solution': a case study of the analysis of astronaut speech during NASA apollo 11 for long-term speaker modeling , 2014, INTERSPEECH.

[2]  Abeer Alwan,et al.  Age, sex, and vowel dependencies of acoustic measures related to the voice source. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Speech Enhancement: Theory and Practice , 2007 .

[4]  P. Loizou Introduction to cochlear implants. , 1999, IEEE engineering in medicine and biology magazine : the quarterly magazine of the Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society.

[5]  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.

[6]  Joseph S. Perkell,et al.  Movement goals and feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech production , 2012, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[7]  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.

[8]  Bharath Chandrasekaran,et al.  Effects of increasing sound pressure level on lip and jaw movement parameters and consistency in young adults. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[9]  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.

[10]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Language Development in Profoundly Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Psychological science.

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

[12]  M A Svirsky,et al.  Effect of different types of auditory stimulation on vowel formant frequencies in multichannel cochlear implant users. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  Prof-Life-Log: Audio Environment Detection for Naturalistic Audio Streams , 2012, INTERSPEECH.

[14]  J S Perkell,et al.  Effects of short-term auditory deprivation on speech production in adult cochlear implant users. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  E S Hochmair,et al.  Four years of experience with cochlear prostheses. , 1981, Medical progress through technology.

[16]  H. Lane,et al.  Speech deterioration in postlingually deafened adults. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  ProfLifeLog: Environmental analysis and keyword recognition for naturalistic daily audio streams , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[18]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation , 2008, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  K. D. Kryter,et al.  ARTICULATION-TESTING METHODS: CONSONANTAL DIFFERENTIATION WITH A CLOSED-RESPONSE SET. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  A comparative study of traditional and newly proposed features for recognition of speech under stress , 2000, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process..

[21]  M L Matthies,et al.  Acoustic and articulatory measures of sibilant production with and without auditory feedback from a cochlear implant. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[23]  Frank H Guenther,et al.  Effects of short- and long-term changes in auditory feedback on vowel and sibilant contrasts. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[24]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  Analysis and compensation of speech under stress and noise for environmental robustness in speech recognition , 1996, Speech Commun..

[25]  S. Ternström,et al.  Loud speech in realistic environmental noise: phonetogram data, perceptual voice quality, subjective ratings, and gender differences in healthy speakers. , 2005, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

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

[27]  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.

[28]  Yannis Stylianou,et al.  Increasing speech intelligibility via spectral shaping with frequency warping and dynamic range compression plus transient enhancement , 2013, INTERSPEECH.

[29]  J B Spitzer,et al.  Speaking Fundamental Frequency of Postlingually Profoundly Deaf Adult Men , 1987, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[30]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  Analysis and compensation of stressed and noisy speech with application to robust automatic recognition , 1988 .

[31]  H M Hanson,et al.  Glottal characteristics of female speakers: acoustic correlates. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Mark Liberman,et al.  Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus , 2008 .

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

[34]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[35]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[36]  Jean-Claude Junqua,et al.  The influence of acoustics on speech production: A noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex , 1996, Speech Commun..

[37]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  Prof-Life-Log: Personal interaction analysis for naturalistic audio streams , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[38]  J S Perkell,et al.  Covariation of cochlear implant users' perception and production of vowel contrasts and their identification by listeners with normal hearing. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[39]  K I Kirk,et al.  The effects of cochlear implant use on voice parameters. , 1983, Otolaryngologic clinics of North America.

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

[41]  L D Braida,et al.  Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.