Literature DB >> 33784185

Does Sentence-Level Coarticulation Affect Speech Recognition in Noise or a Speech Masker?

Brandi Jett1, Emily Buss2, Virginia Best3, Jacob Oleson4, Lauren Calandruccio1.   

Abstract

Purpose Three experiments were conducted to better understand the role of between-word coarticulation in masked speech recognition. Specifically, we explored whether naturally coarticulated sentences supported better masked speech recognition as compared to sentences derived from individually spoken concatenated words. We hypothesized that sentence recognition thresholds (SRTs) would be similar for coarticulated and concatenated sentences in a noise masker but would be better for coarticulated sentences in a speech masker. Method Sixty young adults participated (n = 20 per experiment). An adaptive tracking procedure was used to estimate SRTs in the presence of noise or two-talker speech maskers. Targets in Experiments 1 and 2 were matrix-style sentences, while targets in Experiment 3 were semantically meaningful sentences. All experiments included coarticulated and concatenated targets; Experiments 2 and 3 included a third target type, concatenated keyword-intensity-matched (KIM) sentences, in which the words were concatenated but individually scaled to replicate the intensity contours of the coarticulated sentences. Results Regression analyses evaluated the main effects of target type, masker type, and their interaction. Across all three experiments, effects of target type were small (< 2 dB). In Experiment 1, SRTs were slightly poorer for coarticulated than concatenated sentences. In Experiment 2, coarticulation facilitated speech recognition compared to the concatenated KIM condition. When listeners had access to semantic context (Experiment 3), a coarticulation benefit was observed in noise but not in the speech masker. Conclusions Overall, differences between SRTs for sentences with and without between-word coarticulation were small. Beneficial effects of coarticulation were only observed relative to the concatenated KIM targets; for unscaled concatenated targets, it appeared that consistent audibility across the sentence offsets any benefit of coarticulation. Contrary to our hypothesis, effects of coarticulation generally were not more pronounced in speech maskers than in noise maskers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33784185      PMCID: PMC8608179          DOI: 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00450

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  47 in total

1.  Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU).

Authors:  Jerker Rönnberg; Mary Rudner; Catharina Foo; Thomas Lunner
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Interaction of Knowledge Sources in Spoken Word Identification.

Authors:  Aita Salasoo; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  A comparison between the Dutch and American-English digits-in-noise (DIN) tests in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Cas Smits; Charles S Watson; Gary R Kidd; David R Moore; S Theo Goverts
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 4.  Perception of the speech code.

Authors:  A M Liberman; F S Cooper; D P Shankweiler; M Studdert-Kennedy
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1967-11       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Speaking Clearly for Older Adults With Normal Hearing: The Role of Speaking Rate.

Authors:  Jean C Krause; Athina Panagos Panagiotopoulos
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 6.  Coordination and coarticulation in speech production.

Authors:  C A Fowler; E Saltzman
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1993 Apr-Sep       Impact factor: 1.500

7.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children.

Authors:  J Bench; A Kowal; J Bamford
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1979-08

8.  Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners.

Authors:  S Gordon-Salant; P J Fitzgibbons
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1993-12

9.  Determining the energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Jayaganesh Swaminathan; Elin Roverud; Kameron K Clayton; Virginia Best
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Measuring Speech Recognition With a Matrix Test Using Synthetic Speech.

Authors:  Theresa Nuesse; Bianca Wiercinski; Thomas Brand; Inga Holube
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Effects of Uncertainty in Level on Speech-on-Speech Masking.

Authors:  Andrew J Byrne; Christopher Conroy; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.