Skip to main content
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.
/content/asa/journal/jasa/138/3/10.1121/1.4928142
1.
1. Allen, J. B. (1994). “ How do humans process and recognize speech?,” IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 2(4), 567577.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/89.326615
2.
2. Allen, J. B. (2005). “ Consonant recognition and the articulation index,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(4), 22122223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1856231
3.
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, 763786.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.02.006
4.
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. 517523.
5.
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.
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), 36683678.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1810292
7.
7. Fletcher, H. , and Galt, R. H. (1950). “ The perception of speech and its relation to telephony,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22(2), 89151.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1906605
8.
8. French, N. R. , and Steinberg, J. C. (1947). “ Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19(1), 90119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1916407
9.
9. Hagerman, B. (1982). “ Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise,” Scand. Audiol. 11, 7987.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01050398209076203
10.
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), 25992610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3295689
11.
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), 26632675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4747008
12.
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), 279285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2387130
13.
13. Miller, G. A. , and Nicely, P. E. (1955). “ An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27(2), 338352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1907526
14.
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), 365378.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.397688
15.
15. Nielsen, J. B. , and Dau, T. (2009). “ Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test,” Int. J. Audiol. 48(10), 729741.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020903019312
16.
16. Nielsen, J. B. , and Dau, T. (2011). “ The Danish hearing in noise test,” Int. J. Audiol. 50(3), 202208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2010.524254
17.
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), 10851099.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.408469
18.
18. Phatak, S. A. , and Allen, J. B. (2007). “ Consonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121(4), 23122326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2642397
19.
19. Phatak, S. A. , Lovitt, A. , and Allen, J. B. (2008). “ Consonant confusions in white noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(2), 12201233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2913251
20.
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), 26832694.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3238257
21.
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.
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), 30513068.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3682054
23.
23. Toscano, J. C. , and Allen, J. B. (2014). “ Across- and within-consonant errors for isolated syllables in noise,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 57, 22932307.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2014_JSLHR-H-13-0244
24.
24. Trevino, A. , and Allen, J. B. (2013). “ Within-consonant perceptual differences in the hearing impaired ear,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(1), 607617.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4807474
25.
25. Wagener, K. , Jovassen, J. L. , and Ardenkjær, R. (2003). “ Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise,” Int. J. Audiol. 42, 1017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992020309056080
26.
26. Wang, M. D. , and Bilger, R. C. (1973). “ Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 54(5), 12481266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1914417
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/138/3/10.1121/1.4928142
Loading
/content/asa/journal/jasa/138/3/10.1121/1.4928142
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/138/3/10.1121/1.4928142
2015-09-01
2016-09-26

Abstract

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.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/138/3/1.4928142.html;jsessionid=ZgJkVYYX1ygoV7BvfDFi1jWk.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/138/3/10.1121/1.4928142&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=asadl.org/jasa/138/3/10.1121/1.4928142&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/138/3/10.1121/1.4928142'
Right1,Right2,Right3,