PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(04): 268-274
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722945
Research Article

Use of Emotional and Neutral Speech in Evaluating Compression Speeds

Petri Korhonen
1   Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), WS Audiology, Lisle, Illinois
,
Francis Kuk
1   Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), WS Audiology, Lisle, Illinois
,
Christopher Slugocki
1   Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), WS Audiology, Lisle, Illinois
,
Neal Davis-Ruperto
1   Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), WS Audiology, Lisle, Illinois
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Emotional speech differs from neutral speech in its envelope characteristics. Use of emotional speech materials may be more sensitive for evaluating signal processing algorithms that affect the temporal envelope.

Purpose Subjective listener preference was compared between variable speed compression (VSC) and fast acting compression (FAC) amplitude compression algorithms using neutral and emotional speech.

Research Design The study used a single-blinded, repeated measures design.

Study Sample Twenty hearing-impaired (HI) listeners with a bilaterally symmetrical, mild- to-moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss and 21 listeners with normal hearing (NH) participated.

Intervention Speech was processed using FAC and VSC algorithms.

Data Collection and Analysis A paired-comparison paradigm assessed subjective preference for FAC versus VSC using emotional and neutral speech materials. The significance of subjective preference for compression algorithm (FAC or VSC) was evaluated using a linear mixed effects model at each combination of stimulus type (emotional or neutral speech) and hearing group (NH or HI).

Results HI listeners showed a preference for VSC over FAC when listening to emotional speech. The same listeners showed a nonsignificant, preference for VSC over FAC when listening to neutral speech. NH listeners showed preference for VSC over FAC for both neutral and emotional speech materials.

Conclusion These results suggest that the subjective sound quality of emotional speech is more susceptible than neutral speech to changes in the signal introduced by FAC. Clinicians should consider including emotional speech materials when evaluating listener preference for different compression speeds in the clinic.

Keywords

hearing aids - compression - emotions - sound quality

Note

The data from this manuscript were presented during the 47th Annual Scientific and Technology Conference of the American Auditory Society in Scottsdale, AZ, March 5-7, 2020.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 24. Mai 2020

Angenommen: 19. Oktober 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. Mai 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Gangamohan P, Kadiri SR, Yegnanarayana B. Analysis of Emotional Speech—A Review. Toward Robotic Socially Believable Behaving Systems Volume I—“Modeling Emotions”. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016: 205-238
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Cowie R, Douglas-Cowie E, Tsapatsoulis N. et al. Emotion recognition in human-computer interaction. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2001; 18 (01) 32-80
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Murray IR, Arnott JL. Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: a review of the literature on human vocal emotion. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93 (02) 1097-1108
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Banse R, Scherer KR. Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996; 70 (03) 614-636
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Johnstone T. The Communication of Affect through Modulation of Non-verbal Vocal Parameters. [Ph.D. dissertation]. University Western Australia; 2001
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Keller E. The analysis of voice quality in speech processing. In: Chollet G, Di Benedetto MG, Esposito A, Marinaro M. eds. Nonlinear Speech Modeling. Berlin: Springer; 2005: 54-73
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Goy H, Pichora-Fuller MK, Singh G, Russo FA. Hearing aids benefit recognition of words in emotional speech but not emotion identification. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518801736
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Jenstad LM, Souza PE. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (03) 651-667
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Jenstad LM, Souza PE. Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (05) 1123-1138
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Boike KT, Souza PE. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43 (02) 456-468
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Hansen M. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (04) 369-380
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Hellman S, Levitt H. Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96 (03) 1471-1478
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Mackersie C, Hellman S, Levitt H. The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103 (5 Pt 1): 2273-2281
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hau O, Andersen H. Hearing Aid Compression: Effects of Speed, Ratio and Channel Bandwidth on Perceived Sound Quality. Audiology Online 2012. Available at: https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/hearing-aid-compression-effects-speed-770. Accessed January 20, 2021
  • 15 Henning RL, Bentler RA. The effects of hearing aid compression parameters on the short-term dynamic range of continuous speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (02) 471-484
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Singh G, Liskovoi L, Launer S, Russo F. The emotional communication in hearing questionnaire (EMO-CHeQ): development and evaluation. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (02) 260-271
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kuk F, Slugocki C, Korhonen P, Seper E, Hau O. Evaluation of the efficacy of a dual variable-speed compressor over a single fixed speed compressor. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (07) 590-606
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V. et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Oeding K, Valente M. Differences in sensation level between the Widex Soundtracker and two real-ear analyzers. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (08) 660-670
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Livingstone SR, Russo FA. The Ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song (RAVDESS): a dynamic, multimodal set of facial and vocal expressions in North American English. PLoS One 2018; 13 (05) e0196391
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 EBU—TECH. Sound Quality Assessment Material Recordings for Subjective Tests. Geneva: European Broadcasting Union (EBU), EBU—TECH 3253; 2008
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Korhonen P, Kuk F, Slugocki C. A method to evaluate the effect of signal processing on the temporal envelope of speech. Hear Rev 2019; 26 (06) 10-18
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Kuk F. Paired comparisons as a fine-tuning tool in hearing aid fittings. In: Valente M. ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. 2nd ed.. New York, NY: Thieme; 2002: 125-150
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ohlenforst B, Souza PE, MacDonald EN. Exploring the relationship between working memory, compressor speed, and background noise characteristics. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (02) 137-143
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar