Logatome and Sentence Recognition Related to Acoustic Parameters of Enclosures

• Autorzy: Kociński J. , Ozimek E.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/aoa-2017-0040

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper deals with relationship between speech recognition and objective parameters of enclosures. Six enclosures were chosen: a church, an assembly hall of a music school, two courtrooms of different volumes, a typical auditorium and a university concert hall. Dirac 4.1 software was used to record impulse responses (IRs) in the chosen measurement points of each enclosure. On this base, the following objective parameters of the enclosure were determined: Reverberation Time (RT), Early Decay Time (EDT), Weighted Clarity (C₅₀) and Speech Transmission Index (STI). A convolution of the IRs with logatome tests and the Polish Sentence Test (PST) was made. Logatome recognition and speech reception threshold (SRT – i.e., SNR yielding 50% speech recognition) were evaluated and their dependence on the objective parameters were determined. Generally a linear relationship between logatome or SRT and RT or EDT was found. However, speech recognition was nonlinearly related (according to psychometric function) to STI values. The most sensitive range of the logatome and sentence recognition relative to STI changes corresponded to the middle range of STI values. Below and above this range, logatome and sentence recognition were much less dependent of STI changes.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

STI; Speech Transmission Index; speech intelligibility; reverberation time

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 42, No. 3
• Strony: 385--394
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 43 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Kociński J.

• Institute of Acoustics, Faculty of Physics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-614 Poznań, Poland

autor

Ozimek E.

• Institute of Acoustics, Faculty of Physics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-614 Poznań, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Borish J., Angell J. (1983), An Efficient Algorithmfor Measuringthe Impulse Response Using Pseudorandom Noise, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 31, 7/8, 478-488.
• 2. Brachmański S. (2004), Estimation of logatom intelligibility with the STI method for Polish speech transmitted via communication channels, Archives of Acoustics, 29, 4, 555-562.
• 3. Brachmański S. (2008), Objective measure for assessment of speech quality in rooms, Archives of Acoustics, 33, 4(S), 177-182.
• 4. Brachmański S. (2015), Chosen problems of speech transmission quality assessment [in Polish: Wybrane zagadnienia oceny jakości transmisji sygnału mowy], Oficyna Wydawnicza PWr, Wrocław.
• 5. Brachmański S., Staroniewicz P. (1999), Phonetic structure of a test material used in subjective measurements of speech quality [in Polish: Fonetyczna struktura materiału testowego stosowanego w subiektywnych pomiarach jakości mowy], Speech and Language Technology, 3, pp. 71-80.
• 6. Bradley J. S. (1986), Predictors of speech intelligibility in rooms, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 80, 837-845.
• 7. Bradley J. S., Sato H., Picard M. (2003), On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 113, 3233-3244.
• 8. Chu W. T. (1990), Impulse-response and reverberationdecay measurements made by using a periodic pseudorandom sequence, Applied Acoustics, 29, 3, 193-205.
• 9. Duquesnoayn A. J., Plomp R. (1980), Effect of reverberation and noise on the intelligibility of sentences in cases of Presbyacusis, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68, 2, 537-544.
• 10. García-Pérez M. A., Alcalá-Quintana R., Woods R. L., Peli E. (2011), Psychometric functions for detection and discrimination with and without flankers, Atten Percept Psychophys, 73, 829-853.
• 11. George E. L., Goverts S. T., Festen J. M., Houtgast T. (2010), Measuring the effects of reverberation and noise on sentence intelligibility for hearingimpaired listeners, Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 53, 6, 1429-1439.
• 12. Hagerman B. (1982), Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise, Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79-87.
• 13. House A. S., Williams C. E., Hecker M. H. L., Kryter K. D. (1965), Articulation testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a Closed-Response set, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 37, 1, 158-166.
• 14. Houtgast T., Steeneken H. J. (1985), A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 77, 1069-1077.
• 15. Houtgast T., Steeneken H. J. (2002), Past, present, and future of the Speech Transmission Index, TNO Human Factors. Soesterberg, The Netherlands.
• 16. Houtgast T., Steeneken H. J. M. (1973), The modulation transfer function in room acoustics as a predictor of speech intelligibility, Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 28, 66-73.
• 17. Houtgast T., Steeneken H. J. M., Plomp R. (1980), Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function. I. General room acoustics, Acustica, 46, 60-72.
• 18. IEC60268-16 (2011), Sound system equipment. Part 16: Objective rating of speech intelligibility by speech transmission index.
• 19. Jacob K. D., Birkle T. K., Icker C. B. (1991), Accurate Prediction of speech intelligibility without the use of in-room measurements, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 39, 4, 232-242.
• 20. Kalikow D. N., Stevens K. N., Elliot L. L. (1977), Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
• 21. Kollmeier B., Wesselkamp M. (1997), Development and evaluation of a German Sentence Test for objective and subjective Speech Intelligibility Assessment, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 102, 4, 2412-2421.
• 22. Kuttruff M. (2009), Room Acoustics, 5th Ed., Spon Press. Abington, Oxon, UK.
• 23. Lam C. F., Dubno J. R., Ahlstrom J. B., He N. J., Mills J. H. (1997), Estimating parameters for psychometric functions using the four-point sampling method, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 6, 3697-3703.
• 24. Levitt H. (1971), Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467-477.
• 25. Longworth-Reed L., Brandewie E., Zahorik P. (2008), Time-forward speech intelligibility in timereversed rooms, JASA Express Letters, doi: 10.1121/1.3040024.
• 26. Majewski W., Myślecki W., Baściuk K., Brachmański S. (1998), Application of modified logatom intelligibility test in telecommunications, audiometry and room acoustics, 9th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference Melecon’98, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 25-28.
• 27. Bruel & Kjaer (2008), Manual Dirac 4.1.
• 28. Marshall L. G. (1994), An acoustic measurement program for evaluating auditoriums based on the early/late sound energy ratio, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 96, 4, 2251-2261.
• 29. Nilsson M., Soli S. D., Sullivan J. A. (1994), Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099.
• 30. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Libiszewsk, P., Warzybok A., Kocinski J. (2009a), The new polish tests for speech intelligibility measurements, 13th IEEE SPA, Signal Processing: Algorithms, Architectures, Arrangements, and Applications, Poznań.
• 31. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sęk A., Wicher A. (2009b), Development and evaluation of Polish digit triplet test for auditory screening, Speech Communication, 51, 4, 307-316.
• 32. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sęk A., Wicher A. (2009c), Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise, International Journal of Audiology, 48, 7, 433-443.
• 33. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sęk A.P., Wicher A., Szczepaniak O. (2006), The Polish sentence test for speech intelligibility evaluations measurements, Archives of Acoustics, 31, 4, 431-438.
• 34. Peng J. (2008), Relationship between Chinese speech intelligibility and speech transmission index in rooms using dichotic listening, Chinese Science Bulletin, 53, 18, 2748-2752.
• 35. Plomp R., Mimpen A. M. (1979), Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences, Audiology, 18, 43-53.
• 36. PN-EN-ISO3382 (2010), Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters – Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary rooms.
• 37. Pruszewicz A., Demenko G., Richter L., Wika T. (1994a), New articulation lists for speech audiometry. Part I [in Polish], Otolaryngologia Polska, 48, 50-55.
• 38. Pruszewicz A., Demenko G., Richter L., Wika T. (1994b), New articulation lists for speech audiometry. Part II [in Polish], Otolaryngologia Polska, 48, 56-62.
• 39. Shen Y., Richards V. M. (2012), A maximumlikelihood procedure for estimating psychometric functions: Thresholds, slopes, and lapses of attention, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, 2, 957-967.
• 40. Steeneken H. J. M., Houtgast T. (1980), A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 318-326.
• 41. Versfeld N. J., Daalder L., Festen J. M., Houtgast T. (2000), Method for the selection of sentence material for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1671-1684.
• 42. Yang W. (2006), Optimizing Acoustical conditions for speech intelligibility in classrooms, PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
• 43. Yang W., Bradley J. S. (2009), Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125, 2, 922-933.

Uwagi

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (zadania 2017).