Perceived Naturalness and Acoustic Characteristics of Habitual Versus Clear Speech for Individuals With Hearing Loss.

IF 2.2
Polina Shuminsky, Jason H Davidow
{"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.

听力损失个体习惯性言语与清晰言语的感知自然度和声学特征。
目的:本研究考察了清晰言语对感知自然度的影响。我们比较了习惯语(HS)、未经训练的清晰语(UCS)和经过简短训练的清晰语(训练后的清晰语[TCS]),并检查了声学变量在不同条件和预测的自然度之间是否存在差异。方法:12名成年女性说话者在三种条件下(HS、UCS、TCS)朗读句子。28名听力正常的成年人在1-9的范围内对自然度进行评分。除了自然度之外,还通过线性混合效应模型(lmm)获得了语音速率、停顿次数和停顿时间的声学测量,并对不同的说话条件进行了比较。结果:语言条件对4个因变量的影响均显著(p < 0.001),两两比较除1个外均显著。HS被评为最自然(3.56),产生速度最快(3.89个音节/秒),而TCS最不自然(5.65),执行速度最慢(1.72个音节/秒),停顿最多,最长。所有的变量都显示了谈话者之间在基线测量和转换到UCS和TCS时的显著差异。语音自然度评级显示了听众之间的重要差异。语速强烈预测感知的自然度,停顿次数和停顿时间也与之相关。结论:与HS和UCS相比,30分钟的清晰语音训练降低了语音的自然度。较慢的语速和增加的停顿与较低的自然度评级有关,尽管这些特征可能不能完全解释TCS降低的自然度。研究结果强调了可理解性与自然度之间的权衡:提高清晰度的策略可能会使语音听起来不那么自然。临床方案可能受益于促进清晰度增强技术,避免韵律过度减慢或中断,以及/或在培训期间提供实时的自然度和可理解度评级作为反馈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书