Effect on Speech Intelligibility of Changes in Speech Production Influenced by Instructions and Communication Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tips for talking to a person who is hard of hearing often suggest how a talker should modify their speech production (e.g., by slowing speech rate). Some interventions attempt to train the person who is hard of hearing to instruct significant others to modify their speech production, while other interventions attempt to train significant others to alter their own speaking behaviors. This review examines the two main experimental research areas that address how variations in a talker's speech may affect variations in a listener's understanding. One area focuses on clear speech or how talkers modify their speech production in an attempt to increase intelligibility by speaking clearly. The other area concerns the Lombard effect or how talkers modify their speech production in response to environmental noise. Findings from both areas of research demonstrate how the intelligibility of speech can be enhanced when talkers modify their speech by decreasing rate, increasing intensity, increasing pitch, and/or increasing high-frequency spectral content. However, more consistent alterations in speech are observed when there is an implicit response to environmental noise as opposed to a response to explicit instructions to speak clearly. Implications for practice and directions for further research are suggested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".