Speakers naturally adopt a special "clear" (CLR) speaking style in order to be better understood by listeners who are moderately impaired in their ability to understand speech due to a hearing impairment, the presence of background noise, or both. In contrast, speech intended for nonimpaired listeners in quiet environments is referred to as "conversational" (CNV). Studies have shown that the intelligibility of CLR speech is usually higher than that of CNV speech in adverse circumstances. It is not known which individual acoustic features or combinations of features cause the higher intelligibility of CLR speech. The objective of this study is to determine the contribution of some acoustic features to intelligibility for a single speaker. The proposed method creates "hybrid" (HYB) speech stimuli that selectively combine acoustic features of one sentence spoken in the CNV and CLR styles. The intelligibility of these stimuli is then measured in perceptual tests, using 96 phonetically balanced sentences. Results for one speaker show significant sentence-level intelligibility improvements over CNV speech when replacing certain combinations of short-term spectra, phoneme identities, and phoneme durations of CNV speech with those from CLR speech, but no improvements for combinations involving fundamental frequency, energy, or nonspeech events (pauses).

An individual's SRT and audiogram can accurately predict the likelihood of effective speech communication in noise environments with known ESII characteristics, where essential hearing-critical tasks are performed. These predictions provide an objective means of occupational hearing screening.

Objectives Hearing impaired individuals often have difficulty in noisy environments. Interleaved filters, where signals from neighboring frequency regions are sent to opposite ears, may benefit those individuals but may also reduce the benefits of spatial cues. This study investigated the effect of interleaved filters on the use of spatial cues. Design Normal hearing subjects’ sound localization abilities were tested with and without interleaved filters. Results Participants’ localization performance was worse with interleaved filters but better than chance. Interleaving in high-frequency regions primarily affected interaural level difference cues and interleaving in low-frequency regions primarily affected interaural time difference cues. Conclusions Interleaved filters reduced but did not eliminate the benefits of spatial cues. The impact was dependent on the frequency region they were used in, indicating that it may be possible to use interleaved filters in a subset of frequency regions to selectively preserve different binaural cues.

No abstract