TY - JOUR
T1 - The effectiveness of clear speech as a masker
AU - Calandruccio, Lauren
AU - Van Engen, Kristin
AU - Dhar, Sumitrajit
AU - Bradlow, Ann R.
PY - 2010/12/1
Y1 - 2010/12/1
N2 - Purpose: It is established that speaking clearly is an effective means of enhancing intelligibility. Because any signal-processing scheme modeled after known acoustic-phonetic features of clear speech will likely affect both target and competing speech, it is important to understand how speech recognition is affected when a competing speech signal is also spoken clearly. In 2 experiments, the authors investigated whether listeners would experience improved intelligibility when both target and nontarget speech were spoken clearly. Method: Listeners' recognition of sentences in competing sounds was examined in 2 experiments. For both experiments, the target speech was spoken in conversational and clear styles. The competing sounds in Experiment 1 included 2-talker maskers spoken in conversational and clear styles of English or Croatian. The competing sounds in Experiment 2 included 1-talker maskers spoken in clear or conversational styles and temporally modulated white noise maskers shaped to mimic the 1-talker maskers. Results: Performance increased for clear versus conversational targets. No significant differences were found between conversational and clear maskers. Conclusions: If it were possible to implement clear speech through a listening device, it appears that listeners would still receive a clear-speech benefit, even if all sounds (including competing sounds) were (inadvertently) processed to be more clear.
AB - Purpose: It is established that speaking clearly is an effective means of enhancing intelligibility. Because any signal-processing scheme modeled after known acoustic-phonetic features of clear speech will likely affect both target and competing speech, it is important to understand how speech recognition is affected when a competing speech signal is also spoken clearly. In 2 experiments, the authors investigated whether listeners would experience improved intelligibility when both target and nontarget speech were spoken clearly. Method: Listeners' recognition of sentences in competing sounds was examined in 2 experiments. For both experiments, the target speech was spoken in conversational and clear styles. The competing sounds in Experiment 1 included 2-talker maskers spoken in conversational and clear styles of English or Croatian. The competing sounds in Experiment 2 included 1-talker maskers spoken in clear or conversational styles and temporally modulated white noise maskers shaped to mimic the 1-talker maskers. Results: Performance increased for clear versus conversational targets. No significant differences were found between conversational and clear maskers. Conclusions: If it were possible to implement clear speech through a listening device, it appears that listeners would still receive a clear-speech benefit, even if all sounds (including competing sounds) were (inadvertently) processed to be more clear.
KW - Clear speech
KW - Informational maskers
KW - Speech perception
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650465260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0210)
DO - 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0210)
M3 - Article
C2 - 20689024
AN - SCOPUS:78650465260
VL - 53
SP - 1458
EP - 1471
JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
SN - 1092-4388
IS - 6
ER -