{"title":"Perceived Naturalness and Acoustic Characteristics of Habitual Versus Clear Speech for Individuals With Hearing Loss.","authors":"Polina Shuminsky, Jason H Davidow","doi":"10.1044/2026_JSLHR-25-00691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study examined the impact of clear speech on perceived naturalness. We compared habitual speech (HS), untrained clear speech (UCS), and clear speech after a brief training (trained clear speech [TCS]) and examined whether acoustic variables differed between conditions and predicted naturalness.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twelve adult female talkers read sentences in three conditions (HS, UCS, TCS). Twenty-eight normal-hearing adults rated naturalness on a 1-9 scale. Along with naturalness, acoustic measures of speech rate, number of pauses, and pause duration were obtained and compared between speaking conditions via linear mixed-effects models (LMMs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LMMs showed a significant effect of speaking condition on the four dependent variables (<i>p</i> < .001), and all pairwise comparisons, except one, were significant. HS was rated most natural (3.56) and was produced at the fastest rate (3.89 syllables/s), whereas TCS was least natural (5.65) and performed at the slowest rate (1.72 syllables/s), with the most and longest pauses. All variables revealed substantial between-talkers variability in regard to baseline measures and when shifting to UCS and TCS. Speech naturalness ratings showed important between-listeners variability. Speech rate strongly predicted perceived naturalness, and the number of pauses and pause duration were also associated with it.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A 30-min clear speech training reduced speech naturalness compared to HS and UCS. A slower speech rate and increased pausing were associated with inferior naturalness ratings, although these features may not fully explain the reduced naturalness of TCS. The findings highlight an intelligibility-naturalness trade-off: Strategies that improve clarity can make speech sound less natural. Clinical protocols may benefit from promoting clarity-enhancing techniques that avoid excessive slowing or disruption of prosody and/or from providing real-time naturalness and intelligibility ratings as feedback during training.</p>","PeriodicalId":520690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2026_JSLHR-25-00691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study examined the impact of clear speech on perceived naturalness. We compared habitual speech (HS), untrained clear speech (UCS), and clear speech after a brief training (trained clear speech [TCS]) and examined whether acoustic variables differed between conditions and predicted naturalness.
Method: Twelve adult female talkers read sentences in three conditions (HS, UCS, TCS). Twenty-eight normal-hearing adults rated naturalness on a 1-9 scale. Along with naturalness, acoustic measures of speech rate, number of pauses, and pause duration were obtained and compared between speaking conditions via linear mixed-effects models (LMMs).
Results: LMMs showed a significant effect of speaking condition on the four dependent variables (p < .001), and all pairwise comparisons, except one, were significant. HS was rated most natural (3.56) and was produced at the fastest rate (3.89 syllables/s), whereas TCS was least natural (5.65) and performed at the slowest rate (1.72 syllables/s), with the most and longest pauses. All variables revealed substantial between-talkers variability in regard to baseline measures and when shifting to UCS and TCS. Speech naturalness ratings showed important between-listeners variability. Speech rate strongly predicted perceived naturalness, and the number of pauses and pause duration were also associated with it.
Conclusions: A 30-min clear speech training reduced speech naturalness compared to HS and UCS. A slower speech rate and increased pausing were associated with inferior naturalness ratings, although these features may not fully explain the reduced naturalness of TCS. The findings highlight an intelligibility-naturalness trade-off: Strategies that improve clarity can make speech sound less natural. Clinical protocols may benefit from promoting clarity-enhancing techniques that avoid excessive slowing or disruption of prosody and/or from providing real-time naturalness and intelligibility ratings as feedback during training.