Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Everyone knows that ... From: Matt Winn <mwinn83@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 23:31:33 -0500 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>--089e0160cb98df4e8404e07fd18a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stuart, Phatak and Allen (2007) looked at English consonants and a small number of vowels. That might be a good place to start. Most of the literature I know looks only at consonants (sometimes only at consonant manner & place contrasts). Phatak, S. A., and Allen, J. B. (2007), =93Consonant and vowel confusions i= n speech-weighted noise,=94 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 2312=962316. If I may add my two cents though, I think that the comparison between Cs and Vs in this situation is not exactly a fair one, since they are inherently different in intensity. Traditionally, we define SNR over the entire stimulus, but a single CVC syllable at a given SNR can be broken down into two Cs that have a much less-favorable SNR than the vowel nucleus. So, at a nominal SNR, we are actually presenting the vowel at a much more favorable SNR. That ought to account for some of the robustness of vowels in noise. On the other hand, if you=92re simply interested in which elements of the signal are robust at a given long-term SNR, none of that matters. Matt On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Stuart Rosen <s.rosen@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > the identification of consonants is more affected by speech-shaped noise > than vowels, but can someone please provide a citation to a paper that > discusses this issue thoroughly? A classic paper would be ideal. > > Thanks for any help. > > Yours - Stuart > > P.S. I have been looking around for a while. > > P.P.S. Surely Jont will let me know that it is all in Fletcher's book! > --089e0160cb98df4e8404e07fd18a Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><p class=3D"">Stuart,</p> <p class=3D"">Phatak and Allen (2007) looked at English consonants and a small number of vowels. That might be a good place to start. Most of the li= terature I know looks only at consonants (sometimes only at consonant manne= r & place contrasts).</p>Phatak, S. A., and Allen, J. B. (2007), =93Con= sonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise,=94 J. Acoust. Soc. Am= . 121, 2312=962316.<br> <p class=3D"">=A0</p> <p class=3D"">If I may add my two cents though, I think that the comparison between Cs and Vs in this situation is not exactly a fair one, s= ince they are inherently different in intensity. Traditionally, we define SNR ov= er the entire stimulus, but a single CVC syllable at a given SNR can be broken down into two Cs that have a much less-favorable SNR than the vowel nucleus= . So, at a nominal SNR, we are actually presenting the vowel at a much more favor= able SNR. That ought to account for some of the robustness of vowels in noise. <= /p> <p class=3D"">=A0</p> <p class=3D"">On the other hand, if you=92re simply interested in which elements of the signal are robust at a given long-term SNR, none of that matters. </p> <p class=3D"">Matt</p></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class= =3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Stuart Rosen <span dir=3D"= ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:s.rosen@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">s.rosen@xxxxxxxx= .ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">the identification of consonants is more aff= ected by speech-shaped noise than vowels, but can someone please provide a = citation to a paper that discusses this issue thoroughly? A classic paper w= ould be ideal.<br> <br> Thanks for any help.<br> <br> Yours - Stuart<br> <br> P.S. I have been looking around for a while.<br> <br> P.P.S. Surely Jont will let me know that it is all in Fletcher's book!<= br> </blockquote></div><br></div> --089e0160cb98df4e8404e07fd18a--