Literature DB >> 29716288

The noise susceptibility of various speech bands.

Sarah E Yoho1, Frédéric Apoux1, Eric W Healy1.   

Abstract

The degrading influence of noise on various critical bands of speech was assessed. A modified version of the compound method [Apoux and Healy (2012) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 1078-1087] was employed to establish this noise susceptibility for each speech band. Noise was added to the target speech band at various signal-to-noise ratios to determine the amount of noise required to reduce the contribution of that band by 50%. It was found that noise susceptibility is not equal across the speech spectrum, as is commonly assumed and incorporated into modern indexes. Instead, the signal-to-noise ratio required to equivalently impact various speech bands differed by as much as 13 dB. This noise susceptibility formed an irregular pattern across frequency, despite the use of multi-talker speech materials designed to reduce the potential influence of a particular talker's voice. But basic trends in the pattern of noise susceptibility across the spectrum emerged. Further, no systematic relationship was observed between noise susceptibility and speech band importance. It is argued here that susceptibility to noise and band importance are different phenomena, and that this distinction may be underappreciated in previous works.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29716288      PMCID: PMC5927964          DOI: 10.1121/1.5034172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  10 in total

1.  Effects of ipsilateral and contralateral precursors on overshoot.

Authors:  S P Bacon; L Liu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words.

Authors:  Gerald A Studebaker; Robert L Sherbecoe
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Relative importance of temporal information in various frequency regions for consonant identification in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Frequency-importance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 word lists.

Authors:  G A Studebaker; R L Sherbecoe
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1991-04

5.  The masking of speech.

Authors:  G A MILLER
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1947-03       Impact factor: 17.737

6.  Use of a compound approach to derive auditory-filter-wide frequency-importance functions for vowels and consonants.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Use of a correlational method to estimate a listener's weighting function for speech.

Authors:  K A Doherty; C W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Band importance for sentences and words reexamined.

Authors:  Eric W Healy; Sarah E Yoho; Frédéric Apoux
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  A frequency importance function for continuous discourse.

Authors:  G A Studebaker; C V Pavlovic; R L Sherbecoe
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Speech-material and talker effects in speech band importance.

Authors:  Sarah E Yoho; Eric W Healy; Carla L Youngdahl; Tyson S Barrett; Frédéric Apoux
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.840

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Individualized estimation of the Speech Intelligibility Index for short sentences: Test-retest reliability.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Donghyeon Yun; Yi Liu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Individualized frequency importance functions for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Sarah E Yoho; Adam K Bosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.840

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.