The effect of wearing conventional and level-dependent hearing protectors on speech production in noise and quiet

Similar documents
Ambiguity in the recognition of phonetic vowels when using a bone conduction microphone

Hearing Conservation Terminology Courtesy of Workplace Integra, Inc.

2/25/2013. Context Effect on Suprasegmental Cues. Supresegmental Cues. Pitch Contour Identification (PCI) Context Effect with Cochlear Implants

Communication with low-cost hearing protectors: hear, see and believe

In-Ear Microphone Equalization Exploiting an Active Noise Control. Abstract

3M Center for Hearing Conservation

HCS 7367 Speech Perception

Hearing Loss Prevention PM Session Ted Madison

Hearing Conservation Program

Role of F0 differences in source segregation

Hearing. and other senses

April 23, Roger Dynamic SoundField & Roger Focus. Can You Decipher This? The challenges of understanding

Hearing Conservation Program

HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM

New CSA Noise Standards and Noise Control

HEARING CONSERVATION PROCEDURE

Lindsay De Souza M.Cl.Sc AUD Candidate University of Western Ontario: School of Communication Sciences and Disorders

The role of periodicity in the perception of masked speech with simulated and real cochlear implants

UC Merced Hearing Conservation Program

Workplace Noise Surveys: A Hands-On Measurement Workshop

Why? Speech in Noise + Hearing Aids = Problems in Noise. Recall: Two things we must do for hearing loss: Directional Mics & Digital Noise Reduction

Speech conveys not only linguistic content but. Vocal Emotion Recognition by Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users

HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Effects of speaker's and listener's environments on speech intelligibili annoyance. Author(s)Kubo, Rieko; Morikawa, Daisuke; Akag

Hearing Conservation Program

NOISE CONTROL AND HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM

HCS 7367 Speech Perception

noise induced Working Together to Prevent Hearing Loss

Villanova University Department of Environmental Health and Safety Policy and Procedure Manual

Effective Date: 27-February Table of Contents

Environmental Health & Safety Policy Manual

Establishing an Effective Hearing Conservation Program. Sarah E. Mouser, AuD, CCC-A Doctor of Audiology & Customer Relations Facilitator

The University of Texas at El Paso

North Dakota State University Noise/Hearing Conservation

Providing Effective Communication Access

Health, Safety, Security and Environment

Effects of noise and filtering on the intelligibility of speech produced during simultaneous communication

UCSD HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM Environment, Health & Safety (EH&S) and Center for Occupational & Environmental Medicine (COEM) 2017

Model Safety Program

Hearing Conservation Program

Hearing Conservation Program

Validation Studies. How well does this work??? Speech perception (e.g., Erber & Witt 1977) Early Development... History of the DSL Method

Environmental Health & Safety Programs

Human Senses: hearing. Week 13 Dr. Belal Gharaibeh

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics

Two Modified IEC Ear Simulators for Extended Dynamic Range

ADVANCES in NATURAL and APPLIED SCIENCES

Before taking field measurements, it is important to determine the type of information required. The person making the measurement must understand:

Procedure Number 310 TVA Safety Procedure Page 1 of 6 Hearing Conservation Revision 0 January 6, 2003

Noise-Robust Speech Recognition in a Car Environment Based on the Acoustic Features of Car Interior Noise

CLASSROOM AMPLIFICATION: WHO CARES? AND WHY SHOULD WE? James Blair and Jeffery Larsen Utah State University ASHA, San Diego, 2011

SPEECH PERCEPTION IN A 3-D WORLD

THE MECHANICS OF HEARING

ipod Noise Exposure Assessment in Simulated Environmental Conditions

Best Practice Protocols

Contents. 1) Purpose ) Policy ) Definitions ) Procedure a) Requirements b) Noise standard... 4

Hearing Conservation Program

SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY S WRITTEN HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM December 2017

Establishment of fitness standards for hearing-critical jobs

HOW TO USE THE SHURE MXA910 CEILING ARRAY MICROPHONE FOR VOICE LIFT

HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM Texas Christian University

Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences. Discovery with delivery as WE BUILD OUR FUTURE

IS THERE A STARTING POINT IN THE NOISE LEVEL FOR THE LOMBARD EFFECT?

Hearing Conservation Program April 27, 2018

HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM

WIDEXPRESS. no.30. Background

Reference: Mark S. Sanders and Ernest J. McCormick. Human Factors Engineering and Design. McGRAW-HILL, 7 TH Edition. NOISE

Binaural processing of complex stimuli

11. Hearing Conservation Program Chapter , WAC

Roger TM. Learning without limits. SoundField for education

Most Comfortable Listening Level and Speech Attenuation by Hearing Protectors

Assistive Listening Technology: in the workplace and on campus

Gettysburg College. Hearing Conservation Program

Extending the Perception of Speech Intelligibility in Respiratory Protection

An active unpleasantness control system for indoor noise based on auditory masking

CITY OF FORT BRAGG HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION TO PURE (AUDIOMETER & TESTING ENVIRONMENT) TONE AUDIOMETERY. By Mrs. Wedad Alhudaib with many thanks to Mrs.

HAT Process: Determining HAT for a Student

Effects of Presentation Level on Phoneme and Sentence Recognition in Quiet by Cochlear Implant Listeners

Hearing Conservation and Noise Control

Tony Gray Head of Safety, Security and Resilience

Occupational Noise Exposure

Delaware State University

Consonant Perception test

Safety Services Guidance. Hearing protection

Hearing Loss and Conservation in Industrial Settings

Effect of hearing protection and hearing loss on warning sound design

Advanced Audio Interface for Phonetic Speech. Recognition in a High Noise Environment

Page104. Hearing Conservation Program

Selection of Hearing Protection

Testing FM Systems on the 7000 Hearing Aid Test System

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Occupational Noise & Hearing Loss Presented at CopperPoint SafetyWorks 2016 By Ms. Robyn Steiner, MSPH CIH CSP June 8 and 15, 2016

Digital hearing aids are still

Potential for reduction in noise exposure using closed back headphone monitoring for rehearsal a pilot study.

Six Components of Hearing Conservation Program. Helene R. Freed, Ed.M Public Relations Specialist Industrial Hearing Testing

Bringing Best Practices in Hearing Conservation to a Wider Audience

Hearing the Universal Language: Music and Cochlear Implants

A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification

INDH 5131 Controls of Occupational Hazards. Noise & Hearing Conservation. Part II. V. Audiometric Testing

Transcription:

The effect of wearing conventional and level-dependent hearing protectors on speech production in noise and quiet Ghazaleh Vaziri Christian Giguère Hilmi R. Dajani Nicolas Ellaham Annual National Hearing Conservation Conference San Antonio, Texas, 23 25 February 2017 Hearing Research Laboratory

Background Occupational noise is a risk factor for the health and safety of workers Stress, fatigue Interference with communication Reducing job performance Temporary and permanent hearing loss Cardiovascular problems

Background Engineering controls are the preferred noise mitigation method, but it is not always possible Hearing protectors (s) are often used s may affect different dimensions of auditory situational awareness: Sound detection Sound localization Recognition of important sounds Speech communication

Background Talker Environment Listener Speech production Factors: Gender Vocal effort Lombard effect Lang. proficiency Hearing protection Acoustic transmission Factors: Distance Reverberation Speech perception Factors: Hearing loss Lang. proficiency Non-acoustic cues Hearing protection NOISE

Background Lombard effect: reflex of talkers to raise vocal effort in noise CHARACTERISTICS OF LOMBARD EFFECT Vocal effort Speech level Pitch frequency (F0) Formant frequencies (F1, F2) Spectral balance Speaking rate Duration Intelligibility Shift to higher frequencies Vowels: Consonants: Words: Sentences:

Background Effect of s on speech production Increases users' perception of their own voice (Occlusion effect) Decreases their perception of surrounding noise leading to a reduction in Lombard effect Alters speech output in quiet and in noise Most studies focused on conventional s in continuous noises (Kryter 1946, Howell & Martin 1975, Hormann et al. 1984, Tufts & Frank 2003, Brungart et al. 2012, Bourserhal et al. 2016) Quiet slight increase in speech level (1-3 db) Noise decrease in speech level with increasing noise level (4-11 db)

Objectives 1. Develop a method of speech signal extraction in the external noise field. 2. Investigate the effects of noise type (continuous, fluctuating) and listener situation (wearing or not) on speech production. 3. Investigate the effects of level-dependent s on speech production. NHCA, San Antonio, Texas (February 23 25, 2017)

Measurement setup Noise simulation facility Quiet and noise 55-85 dba External noise field from 6 loudspeakers Hearing protector Conventional and level-dependent Subject talkers Normal hearing Task Utter list of 11 short sentences (HINT) Example The engine is running Manikin 1 m in front Recording equipment Sound level meter (B&K Type 2235) Free-field mic. (B&K Type 4189) at 25 cm Audio Interface (TASCAM US-366) Mic. manikin Sp subject N5 N6

Measurement setup Lombard speech extraction in an external noise field Direct Waveform Subtraction (Brungart et al., 2012) Adaptive noise cancellation (Vaziri et al., 2015) Noise Subtract + Noisy speech Enhanced speech (DWS) Two-channel Adaptive Filtering (O'Shaughnessy, 2000) Enhanced speech (ANC)

Experiment 1 24 participants with normal hearing (12 male, 12 female) Conventional passive earmuff 3M PELTOR Optime 98 with a Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) of 25 db Four different ear conditions: Talker Open Open Listener (Manikin) Open Open Speech recording in quiet and 4 different noises (Pink, IFFM, SSnoise, Helicopter) at two different levels (70 and 85 dba)

Experiment 1 Band Level (db SPL) 60 50 40 30 0.5 0-0.5 0.5 0-0.5 0.5 0-0.5 0.5 0-0.5 0 1 2 3 4 Time (s) 20 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K One-third octave-band frequency (Hz) Pink noise IFFM noise SSnoise Helicopter Pink noise IFFM noise SSnoise Helicopter

Experiment 1 Effect of : Talker: 0.6 db (non-significant) Speech Level (d db SPL) 85 Listener: 6-7 db 80 (significant) 75 speech in quiet Listener Open 70 Open Open Talker ear condition

Experiment 1 Effect of Noise level: Talker Listener Rise (db) Open Open 6.6 Open 4.5 Speech Level (d db SPL) 95 90 85 80 Open 2.6 75 1.8 Effect of Noise type: Lower speech levels in fluctuating noises Higher speech levels in low freq. noises 95 90 85 80 75 Talker-Open Listener-Open 70 85 Talker- Listener-Open speech in noise 95 90 85 80 75 95 90 85 80 Talker-Open Listener- 70 85 Talker- Listener- 75 70 85 70 85 Noise Level (dba) Pink IFFM SSnoise Helicopter

Experiment 1 speech in noise Effect of : Talker: 2-6 db at 70 dba 5-10 db at 85 dba Listener: 3-5 db at 70 dba 1-4 db at 85 dba Speech Level (db SPL) 100 95 90 85 80 70 dba 85 dba Listener Listener Open Open 75 Open Open Open Open Talker ear condition Pink IFFM SSnoise Helicopter

Experiment 1 Pitch Frequency (F0): Similar pitch effects for both genders 440 400 360 speech in noise 70 dba 85 dba Listener Listener Open Open Pitch increases with speech levels Pitch changes with noise level and talker/listener condition follow same patterns as speech level data Pitch (Hz) 320 280 240 200 160 120 Open Open Females Males Open Open Talker ear condition Pink IFFM SSnoise Helicopter

Experiment 2 24 participants with normal hearing (12 male, 12 female) Level-dependent 3M Peltor PowerCom Plus earmuff Talker Device setting Open - -S4 -S1 -Off Level-dependent @ High gain Level-dependent @ Low gain Passive (NRR of 25 db) Speech recording in quiet and 2 different noises (Pink and Pulse Pink) at three different levels (55, 70 and 85 dba) 0.1 0-0.1 0.1 0 Pink noise Pulse Pink (16/s) -0.1

Experiment 2 Input-output function (speech noise) for Level-dependent 3M Peltor PowerCom Plus Gain (db) + 13 + 9 + 4-2 -6 -Off -30 db

Experiment 2 Effect of : 76 speech in quiet Small and nonsignificant Trend towards lower speech levels with high level-dependent gain setting (-S4) Speech Leve el (db SPL) 74 72 70 68 Open S4 S1 Talker ear condition Off

Experiment 2 More prominent effect of the higher the noise level Lower speech levels with s than Open at 70 and 85 dba Biggest drop (4-10 db) with -Off Least drop (2-6 db) with -S4 Slightly higher speech levels in continuous Pink than Pulse Pink Speech Level (db SPL) 95 90 85 80 75 Pink Pulse Pink 55 dba 55 dba speech in noise 70 dba 85 dba 70 Open Open Open S4 S1 Off S4 S1 Off Talker ear condition S4 S1 Off

Conclusions Direct waveform subtraction and adaptive cancellation are effective laboratory methods for extracting speech when s are worn. Results show: Reduced speech levels (5-10 db) the larger the noise level when the Talker is wearing passive s. Increased speech levels (3-7 db) the lower the noise level or in quiet when the Listener is wearing s. Level-dependent protection promotes higher speech output, especially at high amplification settings, but speech levels remain lower than with open ears. Slightly lower (0-3 db) speech levels in fluctuating noises. Wearing s can affect speech production through a complex interaction of factors.

The effect of wearing conventional and level-dependent hearing protectors on speech production in noise and quiet gvazi024@uottawa.ca Ghazaleh Vaziri Christian Giguère Hilmi R. Dajani Nicolas Ellaham Annual National Hearing Conservation Conference San Antonio, Texas, 23 25 February 2017 Hearing Research Laboratory