Speech Recognition in Real-Life Background Noise by Young and Middle-Aged Adults with Normal Hearing
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background and Objectives: People usually converse in real-life background noise. They experience more difficulty understanding speech in noise than in a quiet environment. The present study investigated how speech recognition in real-life background noise is affected by the type of noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and age. Subjects and Methods: Eighteen young adults and fifteen middle-aged adults with normal hearing participated in the present study. Three types of noise [subway noise, vacuum noise, and multi-talker babble (MTB)] were presented via a loudspeaker at three SNRs of 5 dB, 0 dB, and -5 dB. Speech recognition was analyzed using the word recognition score. Results: 1) Speech recognition in subway noise was the greatest in comparison to vacuum noise and MTB, 2) at the SNR of -5 dB, speech recognition was greater in subway noise than vacuum noise and in vacuum noise than MTB while at the SNRs of 0 and 5 dB, it was greater in subway noise than both vacuum noise and MTB and there was no difference between vacuum noise and MTB, 3) speech recognition decreased as the SNR decreased, and 4) young adults showed better speech recognition performance in all types of noises at all SNRs than middle-aged adults. Conclusions: Speech recognition in real-life background noise was affected by the type of noise, SNR, and age. The results suggest that the frequency distribution, amplitude fluctuation, informational masking, and cognition may be important underlying factors determining speech recognition performance in noise.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: People usually converse in real-life background noise. They experience more difficulty understanding speech in noise than in a quiet environment. The present study investigated how speech recognition in real-life background noise is affected by the type of noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and age. Subjects and Methods: Eighteen young adults and fifteen middle-aged adults with normal hearing participated in the present study. Three types of noise [subway noise, vacuum noise, and multi-talker babble (MTB)] were presented via a loudspeaker at three SNRs of 5 dB, 0 dB, and -5 dB. Speech recognition was analyzed using the word recognition score. Results: 1) Speech recognition in subway noise was the greatest in comparison to vacuum noise and MTB, 2) at the SNR of -5 dB, speech recognition was greater in subway noise than vacuum noise and in vacuum noise than MTB while at the SNRs of 0 and 5 dB, it was greater in subway noise than both vacuum noise and MTB and there was no difference between vacuum noise and MTB, 3) speech recognition decreased as the SNR decreased, and 4) young adults showed better speech recognition performance in all types of noises at all SNRs than middle-aged adults. Conclusions: Speech recognition in real-life background noise was affected by the type of noise, SNR, and age. The results suggest that the frequency distribution, amplitude fluctuation, informational masking, and cognition may be important underlying factors determining speech recognition performance in noise.
참고문헌 (23)
- Pittman AL, "Recognition of speech produced in noise", J Speech Lang Hear Res, 44, pp.487~496 (2001)
- Dubno JR, "Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise", J Acoust Soc Am, 76, pp.87~96 (1984)
- Danhauer JL, "Effects of four noise competitors on the California Consonant Test", J Speech Hear Disord, 44, pp.354~362 (1979)
- Prosser S, "Effects of different noises on speech discrimination by the elderly", Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 476, pp.136~142 (1990)
- Rhebergen KS, "Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing", Ear Hear, 29, pp.169~175 (2008)
- Crandell CC, "Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment", Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, 31, pp.362~370 (2000)
- Wilson RH, "A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB signal to babble", J Rehabil Res Dev, 40, pp.321~327 (2003)
- Helfer KS, "Aging and speech-on-speech masking", Ear Hear, 29, pp.87~98 (2008)
- Tun PA, "Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners", Psychol Aging, 17, pp.453~467 (2002)
- Ben-David BM, "Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker?", Hear Res, 290, pp.55~63 (2012)
- Sherbecoe RL, "Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners’ performance on the connected speech test", Ear Hear, 24, pp.71~88 (2003)
- Ostroff JM, "Aging and the processing of sound duration in human auditory cortex", Hear Res, 181, pp.1~7 (2003)
- Snell KB, "Relationships among age-related differences in gap detection and word recognition", J Acoust Soc Am, 107, pp.1615~1626 (2000)
- Dreschler WA, "Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. II", J Acoust Soc Am, 78, pp.1261~1270 (1985)
- Snell KB, "Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity", J Acoust Soc Am, 112, pp.720~727 (2002)
- Wilson RH, "Speech-in-noise measures: variable versus fixed speech and noise levels", Int J Audiol, 51, pp.708~712 (2012)
- Lee JH, "Korean Speech Audiometry" (2010), Hakjisa
- Li N, "Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise", J Acoust Soc Am, 122, pp.1165~1172 (2007)
- Cooke M, "A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise", J Acoust Soc Am, 119, pp.1562~1573 (2006)
- Wong LL, "Characterization of speech understanding in various types of noise", J Acoust Soc Am, 132, pp.2642~2651 (2012)
- Brungart DS, "Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers", J Acoust Soc Am, 110(5 Pt 1), pp.2527~2538 (2001)
- Pichora-Fuller MK, "How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise", J Acoust Soc Am, 97, pp.593~608 (1995)
- Wong PC, "Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise", Neuropsychologia, 47, pp.693~703 (2009)