Effect on Speech Intelligibility of Changes in Speech Production Influenced by Instructions and Communication Environments

ABSTRACT

Tips for talking to a person who is hard of hearing often suggest how a talker should modify their speech production (e.g., by slowing speech rate). Some interventions attempt to train the person who is hard of hearing to instruct significant others to modify their speech production, while other interventions attempt to train significant others to alter their own speaking behaviors. This review examines the two main experimental research areas that address how variations in a talker's speech may affect variations in a listener's understanding. One area focuses on clear speech or how talkers modify their speech production in an attempt to increase intelligibility by speaking clearly. The other area concerns the Lombard effect or how talkers modify their speech production in response to environmental noise. Findings from both areas of research demonstrate how the intelligibility of speech can be enhanced when talkers modify their speech by decreasing rate, increasing intensity, increasing pitch, and/or increasing high-frequency spectral content. However, more consistent alterations in speech are observed when there is an implicit response to environmental noise as opposed to a response to explicit instructions to speak clearly. Implications for practice and directions for further research are suggested.

KEYWORDS

Clear speech - Lombard effect - speech intelligibility - intertalker differences

REFERENCES

• 1 Pichora-Fuller M K, Schow R. Audiologic rehabilitation for adults: assessment and management. In: Schow RL, Nerbonne MA Introduction to Audiologic Rehabilitation. 5th ed. Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon 2007: 367-434
• 2 Robertson L, Pichora-Fuller M K, Jennings M B, Kirson R, Roodenburg K. The effect of an aural rehabilitation program on responses to scenarios depicting communication breakdown.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 1997;  21 187-198
• 3 Dillon L M, Lamb N L, Pichora-Fuller M K, Johnson C E, Roodenburg K E. Hearing handicap, coping skills, and audiological services: the client's perspectives.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 1998;  22 27
• 4 Giles H, Coupland N, Coupland J. Accommodation theory: communication, context, and consequence. In: Giles H, Coupland N, Coupland J Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. New York, NY; Cambridge University Press 1991: 1-68
• 5 Matthies M L, Perrier P, Perkell J S, Zandipour M. Variation in anticipatory coarticulation with changes in clarity and rate.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;  44 340-353
• 6 Perkell J S, Zandipour M, Matthies M L, Lane H. Economy of effort in different speaking conditions. I. A preliminary study of intersubject differences and modeling issues.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;  112 1627-1641
• 7 Kang K-H, Guion S G. Clear speech production of Korean stops: changing phonetic targets and enhancement strategies.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;  124 3909-3917
• 8 Moon S-J, Lindblom B. Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;  96 40-55
• 9 Cutler A, Butterfield S. Durational cues to word boundaries in clear speech.  Speech Commun. 1990;  9 485-495
• 10 Van Lieshout P, Moussa W. The assessment of speech motor behavior using electromagnetic articulography.  The Phonetician. 2000;  81 9-22
• 11 Ferguson S H, Kewley-Port D. Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;  112 259-271
• 12 Gagné J-P, Rochette A-J, Charest M. Auditory, visual and audiovisual clear speech.  Speech Commun. 2002;  37 213-230
• 13 Ferguson S H. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: vowel intelligibility for normal-hearing listeners.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;  116 2365-2373
• 14 Tolhurst G C. Effects of duration and articulation changes on intelligibility, word reception and listener preference.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1957;  22 328-333
• 15 Picheny M A, Durlach N I, Braida L D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. I. intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech.  J Speech Hear Res. 1985;  28 96-103
• 16 Payton K L, Uchanski R M, Braida L D. Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;  95 1581-1592
• 17 Helfer K S. Auditory and auditory-visual perception of clear and conversational speech.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;  40 432-443
• 18 Helfer K S. Auditory and auditory-visual recognition of clear and conversational speech by older adults.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;  9 234-242
• 19 Krause J C, Braida L D. Investigating alternative forms of clear speech: the effects of speaking rate and speaking mode on intelligibility.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;  112 2165-2172
• 20 Smiljanić R, Bradlow A R. Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;  118 1677-1688
• 21 Kozlowski L, Gagné J-P. A training program designed to improve the speech intelligibility of persons who interact frequently with elderly individuals who have a hearing loss: evaluation of the efficacy of the program.  Geriatrics Today: J Canadian Geriatrics Society. 2002;  5 183-186
• 22 Schum D J. Intelligibility of clear and conversational speech of young and elderly talkers.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;  7 212-218
• 23 Bradlow A R, Bent T. The clear speech effect for non-native listeners.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;  112 272-284
• 24 Liu S, Del Rio E, Bradlow A R, Zeng F-G. Clear speech perception in acoustic and electric hearing.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;  116 2374-2383
• 25 Caissie R, Campbell M M, Frenette W L, Scott L, Howell I, Roy A. Clear speech for adults with a hearing loss: does intervention with communication partners make a difference?.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;  16 157-171
• 26 Bradlow A R, Alexander J A. Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;  121 2339-2349
• 27 Goy H, Pichora-Fuller K, Van Lieshout P, Singh G, Schneider B. Effect of within- and between-talker variability on word identification in noise by younger and older adults.  Can Acoust. 2007;  35 108-109
• 28 Harnsberger J D, Wright R, Pisoni D B. A new method for eliciting three speaking styles in the laboratory.  Speech Commun. 2008;  50 323-336
• 29 Smiljanić R, Bradlow A R. Temporal organization of English clear and conversational speech.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;  124 3171-3182
• 30 Navarro R. Effects of ear canal occlusion and masking on the perception of voice.  Percept Mot Skills. 1996;  82 199-208
• 31 Ferrand C T. Relationship between masking levels and phonatory stability in normal-speaking women.  J Voice. 2006;  20 223-228
• 32 Perkell J S, Denny M, Lane H et al.. Effects of masking noise on vowel and sibilant contrasts in normal-hearing speakers and postlingually deafened cochlear implant users.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;  121 505-518
• 33 Charlip W S, Burk K W. Effects of noise on selected speech parameters.  J Commun Disord. 1969;  2 212-219
• 34 Casali J G, Horylev M J, Grenell J F. A pilot study on the effects of hearing protection and ambient noise characteristics on intensity of uttered speech. In: Asfour SS Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors IV. North Holland, The Netherlands; Elsevier Science 1987: 303-310
• 35 Clark J E, Lubker J F, Hunnicutt S. Some preliminary evidence for phonetic adjustment strategies in communication difficulty. In: Steele R, Threadgold T Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; John Benjamins 1987: 161-180
• 36 Bond Z S, Moore T J, Gable B. Acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech produced in noise and while wearing an oxygen mask.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1989;  85 907-912
• 37 Tartter V C, Gomes H, Litwin E. Some acoustic effects of listening to noise on speech production.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;  94 2437-2440
• 38 Zhao Y, Jurafsky D. The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation.  Journal of Phonetics. 2009;  37 231-247
• 39 Brown Jr W S, Brandt J F. Effects of auditory masking on vocal intensity and intraoral air pressure during sentence production.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1971;  49 1903-1905
• 40 Rastatter M, Rivers C. The effects of short-term auditory masking on fundamental frequency variability.  J Aud Res. 1983;  23 33-42
• 41 Castellanos A, Benedí J-M, Casacuberta F. An analysis of general acoustic-phonetic features for Spanish speech produced with the Lombard effect.  Speech Commun. 1996;  20 23-35
• 42 Siegel G M, Pick Jr H L. Auditory feedback in the regulation of voice.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1974;  56 1618-1624
• 43 Garber S F, Siegel G M, Pick Jr H L, Alcorn S R. The influence of selected masking noises on Lombard and sidetone amplification effects.  J Speech Hear Res. 1976;  19 523-535
• 44 Rivers C, Rastatter M P. The effects of multitalker and masker noise on fundamental frequency variability during spontaneous speech for children and adults.  J Aud Res. 1985;  25 37-45
• 45 Pick Jr H L, Siegel G M, Fox P W, Garber S R, Kearney J K. Inhibiting the Lombard effect.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1989;  85 894-900
• 46 Winkworth A L, Davis P J. Speech breathing and the Lombard effect.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;  40 159-169
• 47 Tufts J B, Frank T. Speech production in noise with and without hearing protection.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;  114 1069-1080
• 48 Jessen M, Köster O, Gfroerer S. Influence of vocal effort on average and variability of fundamental frequency.  Int J Speech Lang Law. 2005;  12 174-213
• 49 Ternström S, Bohman M, Södersten M. Loud speech over noise: some spectral attributes, with gender differences.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;  119 1648-1665
• 50 Hanley T D, Steer M D. Effect of level of distracting noise upon speaking rate, duration and intensity.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1949;  14 363-368
• 51 Letowski T, Frank T, Caravella J. Acoustical properties of speech produced in noise presented through supra-aural earphones.  Ear Hear. 1993;  14 332-338
• 52 Amazi D K, Garber S R. The Lombard sign as a function of age and task.  J Speech Hear Res. 1982;  25 581-585
• 53 Webster J C, Klumpp R G. Effects of ambient noise and nearby talkers on a face-to-face communication task.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1962;  34 936-941
• 54 Summers W V, Pisoni D B, Bernacki R H, Pedlow R I, Stokes M A. Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;  84 917-928
• 55 Junqua J-C. The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;  93 510-524
• 56 Dreher J J, O'Neill J J. Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility for words and phrases.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1957;  29 1320-1323
• 57 Pittman A L, Wiley T L. Recognition of speech produced in noise.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;  44 487-496
• 58 Lu Y, Cooke M. Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;  124 3261-3275
• 59 Patel R, Schell K W. The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;  51 209-220
• 60 Cutler A, Butterfield S. Word boundary cues in clear speech: a supplementary report.  Speech Commun. 1991;  10 335-353
• 61 Krause J C, Braida L D. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;  115 362-378
• 62 Picheny M A, Durlach N I, Braida L D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech.  J Speech Hear Res. 1986;  29 434-446
• 63 Ferguson S H, Kewley-Port D. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: acoustic characteristics of vowels.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;  50 1241-1255
• 64 Picheny M A, Durlach N I, Braida L D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing III: an attempt to determine the contribution of speaking rate to differences in intelligibility between clear and conversational speech.  J Speech Hear Res. 1989;  32 600-603
• 65 Bradlow A R, Kraus N, Hayes E. Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: sentence perception in noise.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;  46 80-97
• 66 Uchanski R M, Choi S S, Braida L D, Reed C M, Durlach N I. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing IV: further studies of the role of speaking rate.  J Speech Hear Res. 1996;  39 494-509
• 67 Pichora-Fuller M K, MacDonald E. Auditory temporal processing deficits in older listeners: a review and overview. In: Dau T, Buchholz J, Harte J, Christiansen T Auditory Signal Processing in Hearing-Impaired Listeners. Holbæk, Denmark; Centertryk A/S 2008: 297-306
• 68 Pichora-Fuller M K, Souza P. Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech.  Int J Audiol. 2003;  42 S11-S16
• 69 Loebach J L, Wickesberg R E. The psychoacoustics of noise vocoded speech: a physiological means to a perceptual end.  Hear Res. 2008;  241 87-96
• 70 Liu S A. Landmark detection for distinctive feature based speech recognition.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1996;  100 3417-3430
• 71 Bahn J, Naumenko K, Goy H, Van Lieshout P, Fernandes D N, Pichora-Fuller K. Establishing normative voice characteristics of younger and older adults.  Can Acoust. 2009;  37 190-191