Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Binns, Christine; Culling, John Francis
Publisher: Acoustical Society of America
Languages: English
Types: Article

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: genetic structures
Four experiments investigated the effect of the fundamental frequency (F0) contour on speech intelligibility against interfering sounds. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for sentences with different manipulations of their F0 contours. These manipulations involved either reductions in F0 variation, or complete inversion of the F0 contour. Against speech-shaped noise, a flattened F0 contour had no significant impact on SRTs compared to a normal F0 contour; the mean SRT for the flattened contour was only 0.4 dB higher. The mean SRT for the inverted contour, however, was 1.3 dB higher than for the normal F0 contour. When the sentences were played against a single-talker interferer, the overall effect was greater, with a 2.0 dB difference between normal and flattened conditions, and 3.8 dB between normal and inverted. There was no effect of altering the F0 contour of the interferer, indicating that any abnormality of the F0 contour serves to reduce intelligibility of the target speech, but does not alter the masking produced by interfering speech. Low-pass filtering the F0 contour increased SRTs; elimination of frequencies between 2 and 4 Hz had the greatest effect. Filtering sentences with inverted contours did not have a significant effect on SRTs.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Assmann, P. F. 1999 . “Fundamental frequency and the intelligibility of competing voices,” Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 1-7, August 1999, pp. 179-182.
    • Bird, J., and Darwin, C. J. 1998 . “Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences,” in Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing, edited by A. R. Palmer, A. Rees, Q. Summerfield, and R. Meddis, Whurr, London, pp. 263-269.
    • Boothroyd, A., and Nittrouer S., 1988 . “Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 101- 114.
    • Brokx, J. P. L., and Nooteboom, S. G. 1982 . “Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices,” J. Phonetics 10, 23-36.
    • Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D., Eriscson, M. A., and Scott, K. R., 2001 .
    • “Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 2527-2538.
    • Carhart, R., Tillman, T. W., and Greetis, E. S. 1969 . “Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 45, 694-703.
    • Carhart, R., Tillman, T. W., and Greetis, E. S., 1969 .
    • Cruttenden, A. 1986 . Intonation Cambridge University Press, New York .
    • Culling, J. F., and Colburn, H. S. 2000 . “Binaural sluggishness in the perception of tone sequences and speech in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
    • Culling, J. F., and Darwin, C. J. 1994 . “Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: Cues arising from low-frequency beating,” J. Acoust. Soc.
    • Am. 95, 1559-1569.
    • Culling, J. F., and Summerfield, Q. S. 1995 . “Perceptual segregation of concurrent speech sounds: Absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98 2 , 785-797.
    • Culling, J. F., Hodder, K. I., and Toh, C. Y. 2003 . “Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 2871-2876.
    • Culling, J. F., Linsmith, G. M., and Caller, T. L. 2005 . Evidence for a cancellation mechanism in perceptual segregation by differences in fundamental frequency.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117 4 , 2600.
    • Cutler, A. 1976 . “Phoneme-monitoring reaction times as a function of preceding intonation contour,” Percept. Psychophys. 20, 55-60.
    • Cutler, A., and Clifton, C. E. 1984 . “The use of prosodic information in word recognition,” in Control of Language Processes, Attention and Performance Vol. X, edited by H. Bouma and D. G. Bouwhuis Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ pp. 183-196.
    • Cutler, A., Dahan, D., and van Donselaar, W. 1997 . “Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review,” Lang Speech 40, 141-201.
    • Cutler, A., and Fodor, J. A. 1979 . “Semantic focus and sentence comprehension,” Cognition 7, 49-59.
    • Cutler, A., and Foss, D. J. 1977 . “On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing.” Language and Speech, 20, 1-10.
    • de Cheveigné, A. 1993 . “Separation of concurrent vowel identification harmonic sounds: Fundamental frequency estimation and a time-domain cancellation model of auditory processing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 3271- 3290.
    • Drullman, R., and Bronkhorst, A. W. 2004 . “Speech perception and talker segregation: Effects of level, pitch, and tactile support with multiple simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3090-3098.
    • Drullman, R., Festen, J. M., and Plomp, R. 1994 . “Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 2670- 2680.
    • Durlach N. I. Mason, C. R., Shinn-Cunningham, B. G., Arbogast, T. L., Colburn, S., and Kidd, G. 2003 . “Informational masking: Counteracting the effects of stimulus uncertainty by decreasing target-masker similarity.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114 1 , 368-379.
    • Festen, J. M., and Plomp, R. 1990 . “Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 1725-1736.
    • Francis, W. N., and Kucera, H. 1982 . Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar Houghton-Mifflin, Boston .
    • Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., and Helfer, K. S. 2004 . “Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 2246-2256.
    • Graddol, D. 1986 . “Discourse specific pitch behaviour.” in Intonation in Discourse, edited by C. Johns-Lewis Croom Helm, London , pp. 221- 237.
    • Haggard, M., Summerfield, Q., and Roberts, M. 1981 . “Psychoacoustical and cultural determinants of phoneme boundaries: Evidence from trading F0 cues in the voiced-voiceless distinction,” J. Phonetics 9, 49-62.
    • Hillenbrand, J. M. 2003 . “Some effects of intonation contour on sentence intelligibility,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 2338.
    • Laures, J. S., and Bunton, K. 2003 . “Perceptual effects of a flattened fundamental frequency at the sentence level under different listening conditions,” J. Appl. Photogr. Eng. 36, 449-464.
    • Laures, J. S., and Weismer, G. 1999 . “The effects of a flattened fundamental frequency on intelligibility at the sentence level,” J. Speech Lang. Hear.
    • Res. 42, 1148-1156.
    • Lehiste, I. 1970 . Suprasegmentals MIT, Cambridge, MA .
    • Liss, J., Spitzer, S., Caviness, J., Adler, C., and Edwards, B. 1998 . “Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthritic speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 2457-2466.
    • Mattys, S. L. 2004 . “Stress versus coarticulation: Toward an integrated approach to explicit speech segmentation,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept.
    • Perform. 30, 297-408.
    • Nolan, F. 2003 . “Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales,” Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 771-774.
    • Peissig, J., and Kollmeier, B. 1997 . “Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 1660-1670.
    • Plomp, R., and Mimpen, A. M. 1979 . “Speech-reception thresholds for sentences as a function of age and noise level,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, 1333-1342.
    • R., Urbanek, G. E., and Weinstock, M. 1969 . “I.E.E.E. recommended practice for speech quality measurements.” I.E.E.E. Trans. Audio Electroacoust., 17, 227-246.
    • Traunmüller, H. 1981 . “Perceptual dimension of openness in vowels,” J.
    • Acoust. Soc. Am. 69, 1465-1475.
    • Traunmüller, H., and Branderud, P. 1989 . “Paralinguistic speech signal transformations,” STL-QPSR, pp. 63-68.
    • Wingfield, A., Lombardi, L., and Sokol, S. 1984 . “Prosodic features and the intelligibility of accelerated speech: Syntactic versus periodic segmentation,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 27, 128-134.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article