The Handbook of Speech Perception 2021
DOI: 10.1002/9781119184096.ch7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clear Speech Perception

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 143 publications
0
10
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It has been claimed that clear-speech modifications must maintain “phonemic norms” and keep cue values within the intended category, so that phonemic categorical distinctions can be preserved while being enhanced (Moon & Lindblom, 1994 ; Ohala, 1995 ; Smiljanić et al, 2021 ). Excessive exaggerations or modifications incompatible with phoneme-intrinsic cues may obscure visual distinctiveness between sounds and inhibit intelligibility (Redmon et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It has been claimed that clear-speech modifications must maintain “phonemic norms” and keep cue values within the intended category, so that phonemic categorical distinctions can be preserved while being enhanced (Moon & Lindblom, 1994 ; Ohala, 1995 ; Smiljanić et al, 2021 ). Excessive exaggerations or modifications incompatible with phoneme-intrinsic cues may obscure visual distinctiveness between sounds and inhibit intelligibility (Redmon et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further intelligibility research (Redmon et al, 2020 ), however, reveals that these visual cues are predictive of a clear-speech advantage for tense vowels and not lax vowels, presumably because lip stretching in clear speech deviates from lax vowel features and thus decreases tense-lax vowel distinctions (Leung et al, 2016 ). Indeed, clear-speech modifications are claimed to involve a trade-off between “contrast enhancement” and “maintenance of phonemic norms” in intelligibility benefit (Moon & Lindblom, 1994 ; Ohala, 1995 ; Smiljanić et al, 2021 ). Excessive exaggerations or modifications incompatible with sound-inherent cues (e.g., greater horizontal lip-stretching of lax vowel /ɪ/) may obscure visual distinctiveness between sounds (e.g., /i/-/ɪ/) and inhibit intelligibility (Redmon et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the second part, which followed after a 10-minute break, the speaker read the same sentences in the clear speaking style "as if she were talking to someone who cannot follow her conversationally or someone with hearing loss." Similar instructions have been used in previous studies to elicit clear and conversational speaking styles (see Pichora-Fuller, Goy, &Van Lieshout, 2010 andSmiljanić &Bradlow, 2009). The recordings were made with a MOTU UltraLite-MK3 Hybrid recorder and a Shure SM10A head-mounted microphone, digitized at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, and saved in WAV format.…”
Section: Stimulimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In each style, two noise conditions were created with an increasing level of difficulty: +3 and 0 dB SPL SNR. These SNRs were selected based on previous literature examining clear speech intelligibility benefit (Smiljanić, 2021;Smiljanić & Bradlow, 2009) and pilot testing. All the speech streams were faded in and out with fivesecond logarithmic ramps.…”
Section: Stimulimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation