Variations in voice level and fundamental frequency with changing background noise level and talker-to-listener distance while wearing hearing protectors: A pilot study

References

• Anderson A.H., Bader M., Bard E.G., Boyle E., Doherty G., Garrod S. et al. 1991. The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34(4), 351–366.
   Google Scholar
• Berger E.H. 2003. The Noise Manual, AIHA. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hCB1LYIGgdcC&pgis=1 [Accessed January 24, 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Bernier A. & Voix J. 2013. An active hearing protection device for musicians. 19 (May 2015), pp. 040015–040015. Available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/poma/19/1/10.1121/1.4800066.
   Google Scholar
• Bou Serhal R.E., Falk T.H. & Voix J. 2013. Integration of a distance sensitive wireless communication protocol to hearing protectors equipped with in-ear microphones. , 19, pp. 040013–040013. Available at: http://link.aip.org/link/PMARCW/v19/i1/p040013/s1&Agg=doi [Accessed December 11, 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Brookes M. 1997. Voicebox: Speech processing toolbox for matlab. Software, available [Mar. 2011] from www. ee. ic. ac. uk/hp/staff/dmb/voicebox/voicebox. html.
   Google Scholar
• Casali J., Horylev M. & Grenell J. 1987. A pilot study on the effects of hearing protection and ambient noise characteristics on intensity of uttered speech. In Trends in Ergonomics IV: Proceedings of the Annual International Industrial Ergonomics and Safety Conference. Miami, Florida, pp. 3–310.
   Google Scholar
• Dreher J.J. & O’Neill J. 1957. Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility for words and phrases. J Acoust Soc Am, 29, 1320–1323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fux, T., Feng, G. & Zimpfer, V. 2011. Talker-to-listener distance effects on the variations of the intensity and the fundamental frequency of speech. Cognition, 4964–4967.
   Google Scholar
• Garnier M. & Henrich N. 2014. Speaking in noise: How does the Lombard effect improve acoustic contrasts between speech and ambient noise? Comput Speech Lang, 28, 580–597. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2013.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen J.H.L. & Varadarajan V. 2009. Analysis and compensation of lombard speech across noise type and levels with application to in-set/out-of-set speaker recognition. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 17, 366–378.
   Google Scholar
• Junqua J.C., Fincke S. & Field K. 1999. The Lombard effect: a reflex to better communicate with others in noise. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings. ICASSP99 (Cat. No.99CH36258), pp.2083–2086 vol.4. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=758343.
   Google Scholar
• Junqua J.C. 1993. The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers. J Acoust Soc Am, 93, 510–524. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8423266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kryter K.D. 1946. Effects of ear protective devices on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 18, 413–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladefoged, P. 1972. Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics: Stress and Respiratory Activity, the Nature of Vowel Quality, Units in the Perception and Production of Speech, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lane H. & Tranel B. 1971. The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 14, 677. Available at: http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liénard J.S. & Di Benedetto M.G. 1999. Effect of vocal effort on spectral properties of vowels. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 411–422. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10420631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu Y. & Cooke M. 2008. Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 3261–3275. p
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazur K. & Voix J. 2012. Development of an Individual Dosimetric Hearing Protection Device. In INTER-NOISE. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Development + of + an +Individual + Dosimetric + Hearing + Protection + Device#4 [Accessed January 23, 2013].
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 2005. Advanced Hearing Protector Study, Flint, , MI. Available at: http://198.246.98.21/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/312-11a.pdf [Accessed December 11, 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Navarro R. 1996. Effects of ear canal occlusion and masking on the perception of voice. Percept Motor Skill, 82, 199–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelegrín-García D., Smits, B., Brunskog, J. & Jeong, C.H. 2011. Vocal effort with changing talker-to-listener distance in different acoustic environments. J Acoust Soc Am, 129, 1981–1990. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21476654 [Accessed January 23, 2015].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pörschmann, C. 2000. Influences of bone conduction and air conduction on the sound of one’s own voice. Acta Acustica United Acustica, 86, 1038–1045.
   Google Scholar
• Schröder M. 2001. Emotional speech synthesis: A review. vol. 1, pp. 2–5. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.9050&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Summers W.V. et al. 1988. Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 917–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundberg J. & Nordenberg M. 2006. Effects of vocal loudness variation on spectrum balance as reflected by the alpha measure of long-term-average spectra of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 453–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titze I.R. & Sundberg J. 1992. Vocal intensity in speakers and singers. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 2936–2946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traunmüller H. & Eriksson A. 2000. Acoustic effects of variation in vocal effort by men, women, and children. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 3438–3451. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10875388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tufts J.B. & Frank T. 2003. Speech production in noise with and without hearing protection. J Acoust Soc Am, 114(2), 1069 Available at: http://link.aip.org/link/JASMAN/v114/i2/p1069/s1&Agg=doi [Accessed June 13, 2012].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varga A. & Steeneken H.J.M. 1993. Assessment for automatic speech recognition: II. NOISEX-92: A database and an experiment to study the effect of additive noise on speech recognition systems. Speech Commun, 12, 247–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voix, J. & Laville, F. 2004. Method and apparatus for determining in situ the acoustic seal provided by an in-ear device. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 28–28.
   Google Scholar
• Zahorik P. & Kelly J.W. 2007. Accurate vocal compensation for sound intensity loss with increasing distance in natural environments. J Acoust Soc Am, 122(5), EL143–EL150. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3412342&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract [Accessed January 23, 2015].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zollinger S.A. & Brumm H. 2011. The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research psychoacoustic research. Behaviour, 148, 1173–1198. p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar