Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityTable 2. Description of the hearing impaired testsubjects groupsSwedish German Flemish# Subject 15 15+15 15+15HearingImpairmentModerateMild+ModerateModerate+CochlearImplantsLocation KTH- Hörtech- Viataal-Preliminary AnalysisMean results of the SRT measurement testsare presented in Figure 2. The figure shows thelevel of SRT value for the different hearing impairmentgroups (cochlear implants with a noticeablyhigher level than the other groups), aswell the difference in SRT value with andwithout using SynFace. The mean values do notshow significant decrease or increase in theSRT level when using SynFace than with audio-onlyconditions. Nevertheless, when lookingat the performance of the subjects individually,a high inter-subject variability is clearwhich means that certain subjects have benefitedfrom the use of SynFace. Figure 3 showsthe sorted delta SRT value per subject for theSwedish moderate hearing impaired subject andthe Dutch cochlear implants subjects in speechwith babble noise condition. In addition to thehigh variability among subjects, and the highrange scaling between the groups with differenthearing impairment levels, it is clear that, in thecase of babble noise, most of the Swedish moderatehearing impairments subjects show benefit(negative delta SRT).Regarding the results of the effort scaling,subjects at all locations, do not show significantdifference in scaling value between the conditionof speech with and speech without Syn-Face. But again, the scaling value shows a highinter-subject variability.Another investigation we carried out was tostudy the effect of the SRT measurement listlength on the SRT value. As mentioned before,the SRT measurement used lists of 20 sentences,where every sentence contained 5words, and one training measurement was doneat the beginning to eliminate any training effect.Still, when looking at the average trend ofthe SRT value over time for each sentence, theSRT value was decreasing, this can be explainedas an ongoing training throughout themeasurement for each subject. But when lookingat the individual SRT value per test calculatedafter the 10 th and the 20st sentence foreach measurement, an observation was that forsome of the measurements, the SRT value ofthe same measurement increased at the 20 st sentencecompared to the 10 th sentence. Figure 4presents the difference of SRT value at the 20stsentence and the 10 th sentence for 40 SRT measurementswhich shows that although most ofthe measurements had a decreasing SRT value,some of them had an increasing one. Thismeans that the longer measurement is not alwaysbetter (decreasing the learning effect).We suspect here that this can be a result ofthat the 20 sentences long measurements aretoo long for the hearing impaired subjects, andthat they might be getting tired and loosingconcentration when the measurement is as longas 20 sentences and hence requiring a higherSNR.Synface, Sentence test252015SRTs105Icra without SynfaceIcra with SynfaceBabble without SynfaceBabble with Synface0-5Sweden;KTH, mod HIGemany;HTCH, mildHIGemany;HTCH, modHINetherlands,Viataal, modHINetherlands,Viataal, CIFigure 2. Mean SRT value for each of the subjects groups with and without the use of SynFaceand with two types of noise: stationary and babble.142
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityFigure 3. The delta SRT value (with SynFace-Without SynFace) per subject with babble noise.Left: the Swedish moderate hearing impaired group. Right: the Dutch cochlear implants subjects.Figure 4. The delta SRT at the 20 item in the listand the 10 th for 40 SRT measurements.DiscussionOverall, the preliminary analysis of the resultsof both the SRT test and the effort scalingshowed limited beneficial effects for SynFace.However, the Swedish participants showed anoverall beneficial effect for the use of SynFacein the SRT test when listening to speech withbabble noise.Another possible approach when examiningthe benefit of using SynFace may be looking atindividual results as opposed to group means.The data shows that some people benefit fromthe exposure to SynFace. In the ongoing analysisof the tests, we will try to see if there arecorrelations in the results for different tests persubject, and hence to study if there are certainfeature which characterize subjects who showconsistent benefit from SynFace throughout allthe tests.ConclusionsThe paper reports on the methods used forthe large scale hearing impaired tests with Syn-Face lip-synchronized talking head. Preliminaryanalysis of the results from the user studieswith hearing impaired subjects where performedat three sites. Although SynFaceshowed consistent advantage for the normalhearing subjects, SynFace did not show a consistentadvantage with the hearing impairedsubjects, but there were SynFace benefits forsome of the subjects in all the tests, especiallyfor speech-in-babble-noise condition.AcknowledgementsThis work has been carried out under theHearing at Home (HaH) project. HaH is fundedby the EU (IST-045089). We would like tothank other project members at KTH, Sweden;HörTech, OFFIS, and ProSyst, Germany;VIATAAL, the Netherlands, and TelefonicaI&D, Spain.ReferencesAgelfors, E., Beskow, J., Dahlquist, M.,Granström, B., Lundeberg, M., Spens,K-E., & Öhman, T. (1998). Syntheticfaces as a lipreading support. In Proceedingsof ICSLP'98.Agelfors, E., Beskow, J., Karlsson, I., Kewley,J., Salvi, G., & Thomas, N. (2006).User Evaluation of the SYNFACETalking Head Telephone. Lecture Notesin Computer Science, 4061, 579-586.Beskow, J., Granström, B., Nordqvist, P.,Al Moubayed, S., Salvi, G., Herzke, T.,& Schulz, A. (2008). Hearing at Home– Communication support in home environmentsfor hearing impaired persons.In Proceedings of Interspeech.Brisbane, Australia.Hagerman, B., & Kinnefors, C. (1995). Efficientadaptive methods for measuringspeech reception threshold in quiet andin noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 71-77.Lindberg, B., Johansen, F. T., Warakagoda,N., Lehtinen, G., Kai, Z., Gank, A.,Elenius, K., & Salvi, G. (2000). A noiserobust multilingual reference recogniserbased on SpeechDat(II). In Proc ofICSLP 2000, (pp. 370-373). Beijing.Siciliano, C., Faulkner, A., & Williams, G.(2003). Lipreadability of a synthetictalking face in normal hearing and hearingimpairedlisteners. In AVSP 2003-International Conference on Audio-Visual Speech Processing.143
Page 1 and 2:
Department of LinguisticsProceeding
Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 141: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics
show all

Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?