Archives of Acoustics, 42, 4, pp. 561–569, 2017
10.1515/aoa-2017-0060

Lombard Effect in Polish Speech and its Comparison in English Speech

Piotr KLECZKOWSKI
AGH University of Science and Technology
Poland

Agnieszka ŻAK
AGH University of Science and Technology
Poland

Aleksandra KRÓL-NOWAK
AGH University of Science and Technology
Poland

The first extensive investigation on the Lombard effect with Polish speech has been performed. Characteristic parameters of Lombard speech were measured: intensity, fundamental frequency, spectral tilt, duration of words, duration of pauses and duration of vowels. The effect was investigated in a task involving real communication – solving a Sudoku puzzle. The speakers produced speech in quiet and in three different backgrounds: competing speech, speech-shaped noise and speech-modulated noise. The
experimental conditions were held as close as possible to those in the study by Cooke and Lu (2010) so that conclusions could be drawn whether differences between the Lombard effect in Polish speech and English speech existed. Most of the findings on the Lombard effect known from the literature have been confirmed with Polish speech. In three parameters, Polish speakers were more sensitive to modulated backgrounds while English speakers were more sensitive to a stationary background. In both languages,
the modulated backgrounds induced speakers to extend pauses in the communication tasks.
Keywords: Lombard effect; speech production; Polish speech; speech level; fundamental frequency of speech; spectral tilt
Full Text: PDF

References

Baker R.E., Bradlow A.R. (2009), Variability in Word Duration as a Function of Probability, Speech Style, and Prosody, Language and Speech, 52, 391–413.

Baker R., Hazan V. (2011), DiapixUK: task materials for the elicitation of multiple spontaneous speech dialogs, Behaviour Research Methods, 43, 761–770.

Boril H., Pollák P. (2005), Design and Collection of Czech Lombard Speech Database, http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2005/i05_1577.html, accessed 2016 Aug. 25.

Brumm H., Todt D. (2002), Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird, Animal Behaviour, 63, 891–897.

Coohen J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 283–287.

Cooke M., Lu Y. (2010), Spectral and temporal changes to speech produced in the presence of energetic and informational maskers, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 2059-2069.

Cooke M. (2016), private communication.

Egan J.J. (1971), The Lombard Reflex. Historical Perspective, Archives of Otolaryngology, 94, 310–312.

Egan J.J. (1975), Use of the Lombard response in cases of hysterical aphonia, Archives of Otolaryngology, 101, 557.

Garnier M. (2008), May speech modifications in noise contribute to enhance audio-visible cues to segment perception?, http://www.gipsa-lab.grenoble-inp.fr/~maeva.garnier/Garnier-AVSP-08.pdf, accessed 2016 Aug. 25.

Garnier M. (2010), Influence of Sound Immersion and Communicative Interaction on the Lombard Effect, http://www.gipsa-lab.grenoble-inp.fr/~maeva.garnier/Garnier-JSLHR-10.pdf, accessed 2016 Aug. 25.

Junqua J-C. (1993), The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 510–524.

Jürgens U. (2009), The neural control of vocalization in mammals: a review, Journal of Voice, 23, 1–10.

Kewley-Port D., Burkle T.Z., Lee J.H. (2007), Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2365–2375.

Kleczkowski P., Pluta M. (2012), Normally Hearing Subjects Have No Advantage of Better Audiograms in Listening Tasks, Acta Phys. Pol. A, 121, A120–A125.

Kobayasi, K.I., Okanoya, K. (2003), Sex differences in amplitude regulation of distance calls in Bengalese finches, Lunchula striata var. domestica, Animal Behaviour, 53, 173–182.

Lane H, Tranel B. (1971), The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 14, 677–709.

Lau P. (2008), The Lombard Effect as a Communicative Phenomenon, UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report 2008, 1–9.

Liberman A.M., Cooper F.S., Shankweiler D.P., Studdert-Kennedy M. (1967), Perception of the speech code, Psychological Review, 74, 6, 431–461.

Lombard E. (1911), The sign of the elevation of the voice [in French: Le signe de l’elevation de la voix], Annales des Maladies de l’Oreille, du Larynx, du Nez et du Pharynx, 37, 101–119, Eng. transl.: http://paul.sobriquet.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/lombard-1911-p-h-mason-2006.pdf

Lu Y., Cooke M. (2008), Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 3261–3275.

Lu Y., Cooke M. (2009), The contribution of changes in F0 and spectral tilt to increased intelligibility of speech produced in noise, Speech Communication, 51, 12, 1253–1262.

Mikulski W, Jakubowska I. (2013a), The results of the study on the reduction of the voice of teachers and the reduction of acoustic background noise in the rooms after the acoustic adaptation [in Polish: Wyniki badań zmniejszenia natężenia głosu nauczycieli oraz zmniejszenia hałasu tła akustycznego w salach po wykonaniu adaptacji akustycznej], Bezpieczeństwo pracy – praktyka i nauka, 6, 10–12.

Mikulski W, Jakubowska I. (2013b), Level of lecturer's voice – results of lectures conducted [in Polish: Poziom natężenia głosu wykładowców – wyniki badań przeprowadzonych podczas wykładów], Medycyna Pracy, 64, 797–804.

Nemeth E., Brumm H. (2010), Birds and anthropogenic noise: are urban songs adaptive?, The American Naturalist, 176, 465–475.

Patel R, Schell K. W. (2008), The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 51, 209–220.

Potash, L.M. (1972), Noise-induced changes in calls of the Japanese quail, Psychonomic Science, 26, 252-254.

Rostolland, D. (1982), Acoustic features of shouted voice, Acoustica, 50, 118–125.

Sinnott, J.M., Stebbins W.C., Moody, D.B. (1975), Regulation of voice amplitude by the monkey, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58, 412–414.

Tressler J., Smotherman, M.S. (2009), Context-dependent effects of noise on echolocation pulse characteristics in free-tailed bats, Journal of Comparative Physiology, 195, 923–934.

Winkworth A.L., Davis P.J. (1997), Speech breathing and the Lombard effect, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40, 159-169.

Van Engen K.J, Baese-Berk M., Baker R.E., Choim A., Kim M., Bradlow A.R. (2010), The Wildcat Corpus of Native- and Foreign-Accented English: Communicative Efficiency across Conversational Dyads with Varying Language Alignment Profiles, Language Speech, 53, 510–540.

Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Chung V., Lutz K., Mirante N., Otten J, Tan J. (2006), Auditory, but perhaps not visual, processing of Lombard speech, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 3444.

Vlaj D., Kačič Z. (2011), The Influence of Lombard Effect on Speech Recognition, [in:] Speech Technologies, Ed. Ipsic I., http://www.utdallas.edu/~hynek/citing_papers/Vlaj_The%20Influence%20of%20Lombard%20Effect%20on%20Speech%20Recognition.pdf, accessed 2016 Aug. 25.

Zollinger S.A., Brumm H. (2011a), The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research, Behaviour, 148, 1173–1198.

Zollinger S.A., Brumm H. (2011b), The Lombard effect, Current Biology, 21, 16, 614–615.




DOI: 10.1515/aoa-2017-0060

Copyright © Polish Academy of Sciences & Institute of Fundamental Technological Research (IPPT PAN)