Speech Intelligibility of the Callsign Acquisition Test in a Quiet Environment

• Autorzy: Blue M. , Ntuen C. A. , Letowski T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper reports on preliminary experiments aimed at standardizing speech intelligibility of military Callsign Acquisition Test (CAT) using average power levels of callsign items measured by the Root Mean Square (RMS) and maximum power levels of callsign items (Peak). The results obtained indicate that at a minimum sound pressure level (SPL) of 10.57 dBHL, the CAT tests were more difficult than NU-6 (Northwestern University, Auditory Test No. 6) and CID-W22 (Central Institute for the Deaf, Test W-22). At the maximum SPL values, the CAT tests reveal more intelligibility than NU-6 and CID-W22. The CAT-Peak test attained 95% intelligibility as NU-6 at 27.5 dBHL, and with CID-W22, 92.4% intelligibility at 27 dBHL. The CAT-RMS achieved 90% intelligibility when compared with NU-6, and 87% intelligibility score when compared with CID-W22; all at 24 dBHL.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

callsign test; speech intelligibility; performance intensity coefficient

PL

komunikowanie się; dźwięk; akustyka; zrozumiałość mowy; komunikacja słowna

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2004
• Tom: Vol. 10, No. 2
• Strony: 179--189
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 27 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Blue M.

• Institute for Human-Machine Studies, Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, USA

autor

Ntuen C. A.

• Institute for Human-Machine Studies, Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, USA

autor

Letowski T.

• Human Research & Engineering Directorate, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, USA

Bibliografia

• 1. Frank H, Karlovich RS. Effect of contralateral noise on speech detection and speech reception thresholds. Audiology 1975;14:34-43.
• 2. Miller GA, Neovius L, Raghavendra P. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1955;27(2):338-52.
• 3. Owens E, Schbert ED. The development of constant items for speech discrimination testing. J Speech Hear Res 1968;11;656-67.
• 4. Letowski T, Karsh R, Vause N, Shilling R, Ballas J, Brungart D, et al. Human factors military lexicon: Auditory displays [unpublished technical report]. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, USA: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research Engineering Directorate; 2001.
• 5. Gardner-Bonneau D, editor. Human factors and voice interactive systems. Hingham, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic; 1999.
• 6. Sydral A, Bennett R, Greenspan S. Applied speech technology. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press LLC; 1994.
• 7. Fletcher H. Speech and hearing in communication. Princeton, NJ, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1953.
• 8. Fletcher H, Steinberg JC. Articulation testing methods. Bell Systems Technical Journal 1929;7:806-54.
• 9. Speaks C, Jerger J. Performance intensity characteristics of synthetic sentences. J Speech Hear Res 1966;9:305-12.
• 10. Letowski T. Performance intensity function for the Callsign Acquisition Test (CAT) research protocol [unpublished technical report]. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, USA: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research Engineering Directorate; 2001.
• 11. Wilson R, Oyler A. Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear 1997;18(5):430-4.
• 12. Kamm C, Dirks D, Bell T. Speech recognition and the articulation index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1985;77:281-8.
• 13. Summers B. Speech synthesis. J Acoust Soc Am 1988;84:917-28.
• 14. Goldstein M. Classification of methods used for assessment of text-to-speech systems according to the demands placed on the listener. Speech Communication 1995;16:225-44.
• 15. Bailey RW. Human performance engineering: designing high quality professional user interfaces for computer products, applications and systems. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall; 1996.
• 16. Logan J, Greene B, Pisoni D. Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. J Acoust Soc Am 1989;86(2):566-81.
• 17. Carlson R, Granström B, Nord L. Evaluation and development of the KTH text-to-speech system on the segmental level. In: Proceedings of International Conference of Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Woodbury, NY, USA: Acoustical Society of America; 1990. p. 317-20.
• 18. Jekosch U. Speech quality assessment and evaluation. In: Jiri S, Vratislav D, editors. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology “Eurospeech ‘93”. Berlin, Germany: European Speech Communication Association; 1993. p. 1387-94.
• 19. Pols L. Multilingual synthesis evaluation methods. In: Stanton R, editor. Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, ICSLP ‘92. Edmonton, Alta., Canada: Quality Color Press; 1992. p. 181-4.
• 20. Hamill BW. Helium speech intelligibility testing in a noisy saturation diving environment. In: 3rd Symposium on Research & Development, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory [abstract]; 1995. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from http://www.jhuapl.edu/symposium/3rd_RandD/Helium.htm
• 21. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specifications for audiometers (Standard No. ANSI S3.6-1996). New York, NY, USA: ANSI; 1996.
• 22. Mendel LL, Danhauer JL. Audiological evaluation and management of speech perception assessment. San Diego, CA, USA: Singular; 1997.
• 23. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms (Standard No. ANSI S3.1-1991). New York, NY, USA: ANSI; 1991.
• 24. Blue M, Ntuen CA. Performance intensity (PI) function of callsign acquisition test (CAT). In: Bidanda A, editor. Proceedings of the Institute of Industrial Engineering Research Conference [CD-ROM]. Atlanta, GA, USA: Institute of Industrial Engineer Management Press; 2003. p. 84-99.
• 25. Beattie RC, Svihovec V, Edgerton BJ. Relative intelligibility of the CID spondees as presented via monitored live voice. Journal of Speech Hearing Disorder 1975;40:84-91.
• 26. Cody RP, Smith JK. Applied Statistics and the SAS programming language. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1997.
• 27. Cooper FS, Delattre PC, Liberman AM, Borst JM, Gerstman LJ. Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 1952;24:597-606.