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.
Sources of variability in consonant perception of normal-hearing listeners
3. Benzeghiba, M. , De Mori, R. , Deroo, O. , Dupont, S. , Erbes, T. , Jouvet, D. , Fissore, L. , Laface, P. , Mertins, A. , Ris, C. , Rose, R. , Tyagi, V. , and Wellekens, C. (2007). “ Automatic speech recognition and speech variability: A review,” Speech Commun. 49, 763–786.
4. Christiansen, T. U. , Dau, T. , and Greenberg, S. (2007). “ Spectro-temporal processing of speech—An information-theoretic framework,” in Hearing—From Sensory Processing to Perception ( Springer, Berlin), pp. 517–523.
5. Christiansen, T. U. , and Juel Henrichsen, P. (2011). “ Objective evaluation of consonant-vowel pairs produced by native speakers of Danish,” in Forum Acusticum 2011.
6. 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(6), 3668–3678.
8. French, N. R. , and Steinberg, J. C. (1947). “ Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19(1), 90–119.
10. Li, F. , Menon, A. , and Allen, J. B. (2010). “ A psychoacoustic method to find the perceptual cues of stop consonants in natural speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(4), 2599–2610.
11. Li, F. , Trevino, A. , Menon. A. , and Allen, J. B. (2012). “ A psychoacoustic method for studying the necessary and sufficient perceptual cues of American English fricative consonants in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132(4), 2663–2675.
12. Lobdell, B. E. , and Allen, J. B. (2007). “ A model of the VU (volume-unit) meter, with speech applications,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121(1), 279–285.
13. Miller, G. A. , and Nicely, P. E. (1955). “ An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27(2), 338–352.
14. Mullenix, J. W. , Pisoni, D. B. , and Martin, C. S. (1989). “ Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85(1), 365–378.
17. Nilsson, M. , Soli, S. D. , and Sullivan, J. A. (1994). “ Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95(2), 1085–1099.
18. Phatak, S. A. , and Allen, J. B. (2007). “ Consonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121(4), 2312–2326.
19. Phatak, S. A. , Lovitt, A. , and Allen, J. B. (2008). “ Consonant confusions in white noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(2), 1220–1233.
20. Phatak, S. A. , Yoon, Y.-S. , Gooler, D. M. , and Allen, J. B. (2009). “ Consonant recognition loss in hearing impaired listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(5), 2683–2694.
21. Scheidiger, C. , and Allen, J. B. (2013). “ Effects of NALR on consonant-vowel perception,” in the 4th International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research (ISAAR-2013), Nyborg, Denmark.
22. Singh, R. , and Allen, J. B. (2012). “ The influence of stop consonants' perceptual features on the articulation index model,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(4), 3051–3068.
24. Trevino, A. , and Allen, J. B. (2013). “ Within-consonant perceptual differences in the hearing impaired ear,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(1), 607–617.
26. Wang, M. D. , and Bilger, R. C. (1973). “ Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 54(5), 1248–1266.
Article metrics loading...
Responses obtained in consonant perception experiments typically show a large variability across stimuli of the same phonetic identity. The present study investigated the influence of different potential sources of this response variability. It was distinguished between source-induced variability, referring to perceptual differences caused by acoustical differences in the speech tokens and/or the masking noise tokens, and receiver-related variability, referring to perceptual differences caused by within- and across-listener uncertainty. Consonant-vowel combinations consisting of 15 consonants followed by the vowel /i/ were spoken by two talkers and presented to eight normal-hearing listeners both in quiet and in white noise at six different signal-to-noise ratios. The obtained responses were analyzed with respect to the different sources of variability using a measure of the perceptual distance between responses. The speech-induced variability across and within talkers and the across-listener variability were substantial and of similar magnitude. The noise-induced variability, obtained with time-shifted realizations of the same random process, was smaller but significantly larger than the amount of within-listener variability, which represented the smallest effect. The results have implications for the design of consonant perception experiments and provide constraints for future models of consonant perception.
Full text loading...
Most read this month