1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
oa
Prior listening exposure to a reverberant room improves open-set intelligibility of high-variability sentences
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/1/10.1121/1.4771978
1.
1. Boila, R. S. , Nelson, W. T. , Ericson, M. A. , and Simpson, B. D. (2000). “A speech corpus for multitalker communications research,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(2), 10651066.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.428288
2.
2. Brandewie, E. J. , and Zahorik, P. (2010). “Prior listening in rooms improves speech intelligibility,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128(1), 291299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3436565
3.
3. Felty, R. (2008). “Perceptually robust English sentence test (open-set),” Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
4.
4. Garofolo, J. , Lamel, L. F. , Fisher, W. M. , Fiscus, J. G. , Pallett, D. S. , Dahlgren, N. L. , and Zue, V. (1993). “DARPA TIMIT acoustic-phonetic continuous speech corpus,” Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, PA.
5.
5. Gilbert, J. L. , Tamati, T. N. , and Pisoni, D. B. (2013). “Development, reliability, and validity of PRESTO: A new high-variability sentence recognition test,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 24, 111.
6.
6. Helfer, K. S. , and Wilber, L. A. (1990). “Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 33(1), 149155.
7.
7. Knudsen, V. O. (1929). “The hearing of speech in auditoriums,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1, 5682.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1901470
8.
8. Lochner, J. , and Burger, J. (1964). “The influence of reflections in auditorium acoustics,” J. Sound Vib. 1(4), 426454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-460X(64)90057-4
9.
9. Nabelek, A. K. , and Mason, D. (1981). “Effect of noise and reverberation on binaural and monaural word identification by subjects with various audiograms,” J. Speech Hear. Res 24(2), 375383.
10.
11. Plomp, R. (1976). “Binaural and monaural speech intelligibility of connected discourse in reverberation as a function of azimuth of a single competing sound source (speech or noise),” Acustica 34, 200211.
11.
12. Srinivasan, N. K. , and Zahorik, P. (2011). “The effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility in reverberant rooms,” Proc. Meet. Acoust. 12, 060001.
12.
13. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). “A rationalized arcsine transform,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 28(3), 455462.
13.
14. Tamati, T. N. , Gilbert, J. L. , and Pisoni, D. B. (2013). “Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: A first report,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol. In press.
14.
15. Watkins, A. J. (2005a). “Perceptual compensation for effects of echo and of reverberation on speech identification,” Acta Acust. 91, 892901.
15.
16. Watkins, A. J. (2005b). “Perceptual compensation for effects of reverberation in speech identification,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(1), 249262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1923369
16.
17. Watkins, A. J. , and Makin, S. J. (2007). “Steady-spectrum contexts and perceptual compensation for reverberation in speech identification,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121(1), 257266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2387134
17.
18. Watkins, A. J. , Raimond, A. P. , and Makin, S. J. (2011). “Temporal-envelope constancy of speech in rooms and the perceptual weighting of frequency bands,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(5), 27772788.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3641399
18.
19. Zahorik, P. (2009). “Perceptually relevant parameters for virtual listening simulation of small room acoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(2), 776791.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3167842
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/1/10.1121/1.4771978
Loading

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.

Click to view

FIG. 1.

(Color online) Speech intelligibility results from anechoic (R0) and reverberant room (R1) listening environments at −8 dB and −12 dB SNR. Results from three types of analyses are shown. (a) Mean ( = 60) transformed speech intelligibility for blocked (filled bars: “B”) and unblocked (unfilled bars: “U”) conditions in R0 (upper panel) and R1 (lower panel) listening environments as a function of SNR. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for each mean. (b) Scatter plot of speech intelligibility during blocked and unblocked listening conditions for R0 and R1environments. Each point indicates data from one listener at a given SNR. For R1, the majority of listeners demonstrate improved intelligibility when consistent room exposure is provided (blocked condition) relative to when room varies from trial to trial (unblocked condition). (c) Mean ( = 60) transformed speech intelligibility as a function of exposure time, measured in six-sentence epochs. Data are shown for blocked (B) and unblocked (U) conditions at −8 dB and −12 dB SNRs in R0 and R1. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for each mean.

Tables

Generic image for table

Click to view

TABLE I.

Block diagram illustrating the experimental design. A sequence of trials is shown for each set, where R0 denotes speech presented in anechoic listening environment and R1 denotes speech presented in a simulated reverberant listening environment (  = 0.3 s). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is indicated (in dB) for each trial. Sets 1–4 (18 trials each) were blocked by room. In the remaining unblocked sets (36 trials each), room was selected at random (equal probability) from a set of six rooms, which included R0 and R1.

Generic image for table

Click to view

TABLE II.

Individual PRESTO sentence lists used in different listening conditions (Room and SNR) for listener groups 1 and 2 ( = 30 for each group). B denotes blocked presentation and U denotes unblocked presentation. Presentation order within each list was randomized.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/1/10.1121/1.4771978
2012-12-17
2014-04-20

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that speech understanding in reverberant rooms improves when listeners are given prior exposure to the room. Results from these room-adaptation studies are limited, however, because they were conducted with materials that are not representative of the high acoustic variability observed in speech signals during everyday communication. Here, room adaptation effects were measured using an open-set speech corpus with high lexical and indexical variability and virtual auditory space techniques to simulate binaural listening in rooms. Room adaptation effects of comparable magnitude to previous studies were observed, suggesting general importance for facilitating speech intelligibility in reverberation.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/133/1/1.4771978.html;jsessionid=juh3ltsr12qd.x-aip-live-01?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/1/10.1121/1.4771978&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Prior listening exposure to a reverberant room improves open-set intelligibility of high-variability sentences
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/1/10.1121/1.4771978
10.1121/1.4771978
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM