The effect of hearing loss on the intelligibility of synthetic speech

Many factors affect the intelligibility of synthetic speech. One aspect that has been severely neglected in past work is hearing loss. In this study, we investigate whether pure-tone audiometry thresholds across a wide range of frequencies (0.25-20kHz) are correlated with participants' performance on a simple task that involves accurately recalling and processing reminders. Participants' scores correlate not only with thresholds in the frequency ranges commonly associated with speech, but also with extended high-frequency thresholds.casl[1] M. A. Aylett, C. J. Pidcock, and M. E. Fraser. The cerevoice blizzard entry 2006: A prototype database unit selection engine. In Proceedings of Blizzard Challenge Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA, 2006. [2] T. Bickmore and T. Giorgino. Health dialog systems for patients and consumers. J. Biomed. Inform., 39(5):556-571, 1006. [3] British Society of Audiology. Pure tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry with and without masking and determination of uncomfortable loudness levels, 2004. [4] J. R. Dubno and H. Levitt. Predicting Consonant Confusions from Acoustic Analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69:249-261, 1981. [5] S. Duffy and D. Pisoni. Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and iheoretical interpretation. Language and Speech, 35:351-389, 1992. [6] L. E. Humes. Factors underlying the speechrecognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112:1112-1132, 2002. [7] L. E. Humes, K. J. Nelson, and D. B. Pisoni. Recognition of synthetic speech by hearingimpaired elderly listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34:1180-1184, 1991. [8] B. Langner and A. W. Black. Using Speech In Noise to Improve Understandability for Elderly Listeners. In Proceedings of ASRU, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2005. [9] F. S. Lee, L. J. Matthews, J. R. Dubno, and J. H. Mills. Longitudinal study of pure-tone thresholds in older persons. Ear Hear, 26:1-11, 2005. [10] P. Luce, T. Feustel, and D. Pisoni. Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and nautral speech. Human Factors, 25:17-32, 1983. [11] O. D.Murnane and J. K. Kelly. The effects of highfrequency hearing loss on low-frequency components of the click-evoked otoacoustic emission. J Am Acad Audiol, 14:525-33, 2003. [12] C. R. Paris, M. H. Thomas, R. D. Gilson, and J. P. Kincaid. Linguistic cues and memory for synthetic and natural speech. Human Factors, 42:421-431, 2000. [13] M. Perry, A. Dowdall, L. Lines, and K. Hone. Multimodal and ubiquitous computing systems: Supporting independent-living older users. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 8:258-270, 2004. [14] M. K. Pichora-Fuller, B. A. Schneider, and M. Daneman. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J.Acoust.Soc.Am., 97:593-608, 1995. [15] J. Pineau,M.Montemerlo,M. Pollack, N. Roy, and S. Thrun. Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: challenges and results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42:271-281, 2003. [16] R. W. Roring, F. G. Hines, and N. Charness. Age differences in identifying words in synthetic speech. Hum Factors, 49:25-31, 2007. [17] T. A. Salthouse, R. L. Babcock, and R. J. Shaw. Effects of adult age on structural and operational capacities in working memory. Psychol.Aging, 6:118-127, 1991. [18] G. Sonntag, T. Portele, and F. Haas. Comparing the comprehensibility of different synthetic voices in a dual task experiment. In Proc. Third ESCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Jenolan Caves, pages 5- 10, 1998. [19] N. Unsworth and R. Engle. Simple and complex memory spans and their relation to fluid abilities: Evidence from list-length effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 54:68-80, 2006. [20] J. F. Willott. Ageing and the Auditory System. Singular, San Diego, CA, 1991. [21] M. Wolters, P. Campbell, C. dePlacido, A. Liddell, and D. Owens. Making synthetic speech more intelligible for older people. submitted.pub45pu