Effects of Speech Intensity on the Callsign Acquisition Test (CAT) and Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) Presented in Noise

• Autorzy: Blue-Terry M. , McBride M. , Letowski T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study sought to evaluate the effect of speech intensity on performance of the Callsign Acquisition Test (CAT) and Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) presented in noise. Fourteen normally hearing listeners performed both tests in 65 dB A white background noise. Speech intensity varied while background noise remained constant to form speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of -18, -15, -12, -9, and -6 dB. Results showed that CAT recognition scores were significantly higher than MRT scores at the same SNRs; how- ever, the scores from both tests were highly correlated and their relationship for the SNRs tested can be expressed by a simple linear function. The concept of CAT can be easily ported to other languages for testing speech communication under adverse listening conditions

Słowa kluczowe

EN

speech intelligibility; speech intensity; speech-to-noise ratio

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 37, No. 2
• Strony: 199--203
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 15 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Blue-Terry M.

autor

McBride M.

autor

Letowski T.

• Department of Management, North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University 1601 E. Market Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27411, USA,

Bibliografia

• 1. Blue M., Ntuen C., Letowski T. (2004), Speech intelligibility of the callsign acquisition test in a quiet environment, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 10, 179-189.
• 2. Blue M., Ntuen C., Letowski T. (2010), Speech intelligibility measured with shortened versions of callsign acquisition test (CAT) lists, Applied Ergonomics, 41, 291-294.
• 3. Fairbanks G. (1958), Test of phonemic difference:The rhyme test, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 30, 596-600.
• 4. House A., Williams C., Hecker M., Kryter K. (1965), Articulation testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed-response set, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37, 158-166.
• 5. Howes D.H. (1957), On the relation between intelligibility and frequency of occurrence of English words, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 296-303.
• 6. Letowski T., Karsh R., Vause N., Shilling R., Ballas J., Brungart D., McKinley R. (2001), Human factors military lexicon: Auditory displays, ARL Technical Report (ARL-TR-2526), U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.
• 7. Morton J. (1969), Interaction of information in word recognition, Psychological Review, 76, 165-178.
• 8. Nickerson J.F., Miller A.W. Jr., Shyne N.A. (1960), A comparison of five articulation tests, U.S. Air Force Research and Development Command, Report No. RADC-TR-60-71, Griffiss AFB (NY): U.S. Air Force.
• 9. Rao M., Letowski T. (2003), Speech intelligibility of the call sign acquisition test (CAT) for army communication systems, Audio Engineering Society 114th Convention, Paper 5836, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
• 10. Rao M., Letowski T. (2006), Callsign acquisition test (CAT): Speech intelligibility in noise, Ear and Hearing, 27, 120-128.
• 11. Schultz M.C. (1964), Word familiarity influences in speech discrimination, Journal of Speech Hearing Research, 7, 395-400.
• 12. Studebaker G.A. (1985), A "rationalized" arcsine transform, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 455-462.
• 13. Studebaker G.A., Sherbescoe R.L., McDaniel D.M., Gwaltney C.A. (1999), Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 2431-2444.
• 14. Williams C.E., Hecker H.L. (1968), Relation between intelligibility scores on four test methods and three types of speech distortion, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44, 1002-1006.
• 15. Zera J. (2004), Speech intelligibility measured by adaptive maximum-likelihood procedure, Speech Communication, 42, 313-328