Skip to main content

News about Scitation

In December 2016 Scitation will launch with a new design, enhanced navigation and a much improved user experience.

To ensure a smooth transition, from today, we are temporarily stopping new account registration and single article purchases. If you already have an account you can continue to use the site as normal.

For help or more information please visit our FAQs.

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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.ANSI (1997). ANSI S3.5-1997, Methods for the calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index ( American National Standards Institute, New York).
2. Cooke, M. , Barker, J. , Cunningham, S. , and Shao, X. (2006). “ An audio-visual corpus for speech perception and automatic speech recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(5), 24212424.
3. Cooke, M. , and García Lecumberri, M. (2012). “ The intelligibility of Lombard speech for non-native listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 11201129.
4. Cooke, M. , Mayo, C. , Valentini-Botinhao, C. , Stylianou, Y. , Sauert, B. , and Tang, Y. (2013). “ Evaluating the intelligibility benefit of speech modifications in known noise conditions,” Speech Commun. 55(4), 572585.
5. Cutler, A. , Weber, A. , Smits, R. , and Cooper, N. (2004). “ Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 36683678.
6. García Lecumberri, M. , Cooke, M. , and Cutler, A. (2010). “ Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review,” Speech Commun. 52(11–12), 864886.
7. Hazan, V. , and Simpson, A. (2000). “ The effect of cue-enhancement on consonant intelligibility in noise: Speaker and listener effects,” Lang. Speech 43, 273294.
8. Reynolds, M. , Bond, Z. , and Fucci, D. (1996). “ Synthetic speech intelligibility: Comparison of native and non-native speakers of English,” Augment. Altern. Commun. 12, 3236.
9. Rix, A. , Beerends, J. , Hollier, M. , and Hekstra, A. (2001). “ Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ)—A new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 749752.
10. Skowronski, M. D. , and Harris, J. G. (2006). “ Applied principles of clear and Lombard speech for automated intelligibility enhancement in noisy environments,” Speech Commun. 48(5), 549558.
11. Taal, C. , Jensen, J. , and Leijon, A. (2013). “ On optimal linear filtering of speech for near-end listening enhancement,” IEEE Signal Proc. Lett. 20, 225228.
12. Tang, Y. , and Cooke, M. (2011). “ Subjective and objective evaluation of speech intelligibility enhancement under constant energy and duration constraints,” in Proceedings Interspeech, pp. 345348.

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Speech can be modified to promote intelligibility in noise, but the potential benefits for non-native listeners are difficult to predict due to the additional presence of distortion introduced by speech alteration. The current study compared native and non-native listeners' keyword scores for simple sentences, unmodified and with six forms of modification. Both groups showed similar patterns of intelligibility change across conditions, with the native cohort benefiting slightly more in stationary noise. This outcome suggests that the change in masked audibility rather than distortion is the dominant factor governing listeners' responses to speech modification.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd