SPEECH PERCEPTION IN NOISE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN SENTENCE AND PROSODY RECOGNITION
 
More details
Hide details
1
Bioengineering research group, Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2011;1(2):54–56
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The perception of speech in the presence of interfering noise remains an important issue in the field of audiology. Successful perception of speech under adverse listening conditions is facilitated to a large extent by the redundancy of the speech signal. An important cue that contributes to the redundancy of the speech signal is prosody, or suprasegmental speech features. The present study investigated the acoustic cues of a particular prosodic pattern, validated its recognition in quiet, and assessed its recognition in noise by normal-hearing listeners. The prosody under investigation was conditional permission, approval or agreement. A collection of sentences were recorded from two speakers (one male, one female). Two versions of each sentence were recorded, one giving unconditional permission or approval and the other adding a condition which was subsequently removed from the digital recording to eliminate differences in content between the two versions while retaining prosodic differences. Recorded materials were validated in a group of normal-hearing listeners (n=12) in a quiet listening condition. The recognition of the prosodic contrast was evaluated in a second group of listeners (n=9) in speech-weighted noise, at three different signal-to-noise ratio’s (SNRs) and compared to recognition of words and sentences at the same SNRs. Findings indicated that the recognition of sentences and of words in sentences deteriorated significantly as the SNR deteriorated, while recognition of prosody did not, remaining significantly above chance, even at an SNR of -8 dB. These findings indicate the resilience of the prosodic pattern under investigation to the effects of noise.
 
REFERENCES (14)
1.
Raphael LJ, Borden GJ, Harris KS. Speech Science Primer: Physiology, Acoustics, and Perception of Speech. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.
 
2.
Fry DB: Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1955; 27(4): 765–68.
 
3.
Lieberman P: Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1960; 32(4): 451–54.
 
4.
Caspers J: Who’s next? The melodic marking of question vs. continuation in Dutch. Language and Speech, 1998; 41(3–4): 375–98.
 
5.
Van Heuven VJ, Van Zanten E: Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages. Speech Communication, 2005; 47: 87–99.
 
6.
Vion M, Colas A: Pitch cues for the recognition of yes-no questions in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2006; 35(5): 427–45.
 
7.
Hammerschmidt K, Jürgens U: Acoustical Correlates of Affective Prosody. Journal of Voice, 2007; 21(5): 531–40.
 
8.
Murray IR, Arnott JL: Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: A review of the literature on human vocal emotion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1993; 93(2): 1097–108.
 
9.
Williams CE, Stevens KN: Emotions and Speech: Some Acoustical Correlates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1972; 52(4): 1238–50.
 
10.
Pell MD: Reduced sensitivity to prosodic attitudes in adults with focal right hemisphere brain damage. Brain and Language, 2007; 101: 64–79.
 
11.
Fujie S, Ejiri Y, Kikuchi H, Kobayashi T: Recognition of positive/negative attitude and its application to a spoken dialogue system. Systems and Computers in Japan, 2006; 37(12): 45–55.
 
12.
Boersma P, Weenink D: Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 5.1.32 http://www.praat.org/; 2010.Last accessed: 29 November 2010.
 
13.
Theunissen M, Swanepoel D, Hanekom JJ: The development of an Afrikaans test of sentence recognition thresholds in noise. International Journal of Audiology, 2011; 50(2): 77–85.
 
14.
Mattys SL: Stress Versus Coarticulation: Toward an Integrated Approach to Explicit Speech Segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2004; 30(2): 397–408.