Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of acoustic features due to the Lombard effect in typically developing children and adults

롬바르드 효과가 아동과 성인의 말소리 산출에 미치는 영향: 음향학적 특성과 모음공간면적을 중심으로

  • Yelim Jang (Department of Communication of Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Jaehee Hwang (Department of Communication of Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Nuri Lee (Department of Communication of Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Nakyung Lee (Department of Communication of Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Seeun Eum (Department of Communication of Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Youngmee Lee (Department of Communication of Disorders, Ewha Womans University)
  • 장예림 (이화여자대학교 언어병리학과) ;
  • 황재희 (이화여자대학교 언어병리학과) ;
  • 이누리 (이화여자대학교 언어병리학과) ;
  • 이나경 (이화여자대학교 언어병리학과) ;
  • 음세은 (이화여자대학교 언어병리학과) ;
  • 이영미 (이화여자대학교 언어병리학과)
  • Received : 2024.02.21
  • Accepted : 2024.04.06
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Lombard effect is an involuntary response to speakers' experiences in the presence of noise during voice communication. This study aimed to investigate the Lombard effect by comparing the acoustic features of children and adults under different listening conditions. Twelve male children (5-9 years old) and 12 young adult men (24-35 years old) were recruited to produce speech under three different listening conditions (quiet, noise-55 dB, noise-70 dB). Acoustic analyses were then carried out to characterize their acoustic features, such as F0, intensity, duration, and vowel space area, under the three listening conditions. A Lombard effect was observed in the intensity and duration for children and adults who participated in this study under adverse listening conditions. However, we did not observe a Lombard effect in the F0 and vowel space areas of either group. These findings suggest that children can adjust their speech production in challenging listening conditions as much as adults.

본 연구는 소음 조건에 따른 롬바르드 효과가 성인과 아동의 발화에 미치는 영향을 음성음향학적 측면에서 살펴보고자 하였다. 본 연구의 대상자는 5-9세 남자 아동 12명과 24-35세 남자 성인 12명이다. 대상자는 무소음과 55 dB, 70 dB의 다화자잡음을 청취하는 조건에서, 발화 과제를 수행하였다. 이때, 대상자의 음성을 디지털레코더로 녹음하였으며, Praat 프로그램을 사용하여 음성의 기본주파수, 강도, 발화길이, 모음공간면적을 분석하였다. 성인과 아동 간에 음도, 발화길이에서 유의한 차이가 있었으나, 두 집단 간에 강도와 모음공간면적에서는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 듣기 조건에 따라 대상자의 음성 강도, 발화길이에 유의한 차이가 있어서, 무소음 조건에 비해 소음 조건에서 대상자의 음성 강도와 발화길이가 유의하게 증가하였다. 본 연구 결과를 통해, 성인과 아동은 소음이 제시되는 상황에서 본인의 음성 강도와 발화길이를 증가시키는 것을 확인하였다. 본 연구는 어린 아동도 성인과 동일하게 소음으로 인한 말명료도 저하를 개선하기 위한 음성적 노력을 기울이고 있다는 것을 확인하였다는 데 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Aalto, E., Saaristo-Helin, K., & Stolt, S. (2023). Auditory word recognition ability in babble noise and phonological development in children at 3;6 years of age. Language Learning and Development, 19(2), 230-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2022.2060833
  2. Askin, V. (2014). Effects of masking, and sex on Lombard vowel production (Master's thesis). University of Canterbury, Christchurch, The Netherlands.
  3. Boone, D. R., & McFarlane, S. C. (2000). The voice and voice therapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  4. Bottalico, P., Passione, I. I., Graetzer, S., & Hunter, E. J. (2017). Evaluation of the starting point of the Lombard effect. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 103(1), 169-172. https://doi.org/10.3813/AAA.919043
  5. Brosseau-Lapre, F., & Rvachew, S. (2018). Introduction to speech sound disorders. San Diego, CA: Plural.
  6. Castellanos, A., Benedi, J. M., & Casacuberta, F. (1996). An analysis of general acoustic-phonetic features for Spanish speech produced with the Lombard effect. Speech Communication, 20(1-2), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(96)00042-8
  7. Cooke, M., & Lecumberri, M. L. G. (2012). The intelligibility of Lombard speech for non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(2), 1120-1129. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4732062
  8. Duffy, J. R. (2005). Motor speech disorder: Substrates, differential diagnosis, and management (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
  9. Finitzo-Hieber, T., & Tillman, T. W. (1978). Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21(3), 440-458. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2103.440
  10. Garnier, M., Henrich, N., & Dubois, D. (2010). Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(3), 588-608. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0138)
  11. Garnier, M., Menard, L., & Alexandre, B. (2018). Hyper-articulation in Lombard speech: An active communicative strategy to enhance visible speech cues? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(2), 1059-1074. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5051321
  12. Han, J. H., Sung, J. E., Sim, H. S., & Lee, Y. M. (2013). Effects of speaking rate manipulation and the severity of dysarthria on speech intelligibility and acoustic parameters in persons with cerebral palsy. Journal of Speech-Language & Hearing Disorders, 22(1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.15724/jslhd.2013.22.1.003
  13. Hong, S. M., & Sim, H. S. (2011). Comparison of articulation ability according to the speaking rate and length of sentences in 4-year-old children with and without articulation disorders. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 16(3), 324-334.
  14. Hyeon, B. S., Yang, B. H., & Oah, S. Z. (2002). The effects of noise-masking and task complexity on performance and psychological responses. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 147-167.
  15. Jamieson, D. G., Kranjc, G., Yu, K., & Hodgetts, W. E. (2004). Speech intelligibility of young school-aged children in the presence of real-life classroom noise. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15(7), 508-517.
  16. Junqua, J. C. (1993). The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93(1), 510-524. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.405631
  17. Katz, J., & Lezynski, J. (2002). Clinical masking. In J. Katz (Eds.), Handbook of clinical audiology (5th ed., pp. 124-141). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  18. Ki, O. K. (2013). Analysis of acoustic modifications of vowel /a/ and sentences caused by Lombard effect (Master's thesis). Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea.
  19. Kim, G. M., & Kim, E. J. (2017). The effects of white noise on sleep quality, depression and stress in university students. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Home Health Care Nursing, 24(3), 316-324.
  20. Kim, Y. K., & Lee, O. B. (2015). The acoustic characteristics of Lombard speech: Pilot study. Journal of Speech-Language & Hearing Disorders, 24(2), 95-104.
  21. Kwon, S. (2016). Characteristics of the auditory evaluation of good impression using speech manipulation scripts. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 8(4), 131-138. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2016.8.4.131
  22. Lane, H., & Tranel, B. (1971). The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 14(4), 677-709.
  23. Lau, P. (2008). The Lombard effect as a communicative phenomenon. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (Report No. 4). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/19j8j0b6
  24. Lee, D. H., & Huh, M. J. (2019). The influence of Lombard effect on normal adult voice: Acoustic characteristics and phonation time. Journal of Speech-Language & Hearing Disorders, 28(4), 59-64.
  25. Lee, H., Lee, J., & Kim, Y. (2016). The Lombard effect on the speech of children with intellectual disability. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 8(4), 115-122.
  26. Lee, H. J., & Kim, S. J. (2006). Age and sex differences in acoustic parameter of middle age and elderly adult voice. Malsori, 1(60), 13-28.
  27. Lee, O. (2010). Speech intelligibility and vowel space area. Cogito, 68, 7-26.
  28. Lee, S. H., Shim, H. J., Yoon, S. W., & Lee, K. W. (2009). Effects of various background noises on speech intelligibility of normal hearing subjects. Korean Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 52(4), 307-311. https://doi.org/10.3342/kjorl-hns.2009.52.4.307
  29. Leibold, L. J., & Buss, E. (2013). Children's identification of consonants in a speech-shaped noise or a two-talker masker. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(4), 1144-1155. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0011)
  30. Nittrouer, S., & Boothroyd, A. (1990). Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87(6), 2705-2715. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399061
  31. Park, J., Oh, S., Jun, J. P., & Kang, J. S. (2015). Effects of background noises on speech-related variables of adults who stutter. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 7(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2015.7.1.027
  32. Patel, R., & Schell, K. W. (2008). The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(1), 209-220. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/016)
  33. Picard, M., & Bradley, J. S. (2001). Revisiting speech interference in classrooms: Revisando la interferencia en el habla dentro del salon de clases. Audiology, 40(5), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.3109/00206090109073117
  34. Rao, M. D., & Letowski, T. (2006). Callsign acquisition test (CAT): Speech intelligibility in noise. Ear and Hearing, 27(2), 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000202289.32228.f6
  35. Rivers, C., & Rastatter, M. P. (1985). The effects of multitalker and masker noise on fundamental frequency variability during spontaneous speech for children and adults. The Journal of Auditory Research, 25(1), 37-45.
  36. Shin, M. S., & Ahn, J. B. (2009). A study on the speech rates of 5- to 7-year-old children depending upon their tasks. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 1(3), 163-168.
  37. Siegel, G. M., Pick, H. L., Olsen, M. G., & Sawin, L. (1976). Auditory feedback on the regulation of vocal intensity of preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 255-261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.12.3.255
  38. Song, S. J., Shim, H. J., Park, C. H., Lee, S. H., & Yoon, S. W. (2010). Analysis of correlation between cognitive function and speech recognition in noise. Korean Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 53(4), 215-220. https://doi.org/10.3342/kjorl-hns.2010.53.4.215
  39. Starkweather, C. W. (1987). Fluency and stuttering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  40. Summers, W. V., Pisoni, D. B., Bernacki, R. H., Pedlow, R. I., & Stokes, M. A. (1988). Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(3), 917-928. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396660
  41. Tufts, J. B., & Frank, T. (2003). Speech production in noise with and without hearing protection. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(2), 1069-1080. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1592165
  42. Wilson, R. H., Farmer, N. M., Gandhi, A., Shelburne, E., & Weaver, J. (2010). Normative data for the words-in-noise test for 6- to 12-year-old children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(5), 1111-1121. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0270)
  43. Yorkston, K. M., Hammen, V. L., Beukelman, D. R., & Traynor, C. D. (1990). The effect of rate control on the intelligibility and naturalness of dysarthric speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55(3), 550-560.