This study investigates the relative effects of talker-specific variation and dialect-based variation on speech intelligibility. Listeners from two dialects of American English performed speech-in-noise tasks with sentences spoken by talkers of each dialect. An initial statistical model showed no significant effects for either talker or listener dialect group, and no interaction. However, a mixed-effects regression model including several acoustic measures of the talker’s speech revealed a subtle effect of talker dialect once the various acoustic dimensions were accounted for. Results are discussed in relation to other recent studies of cross-dialect intelligibility.
AbercrombieD. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
2.
AdankP.EvansB. G.Stuart-SmithJ.ScottS. K. (2009). Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 520–529.
3.
American National Standards Institute. (2004). American national standard methods for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry (No. ANSI/ASA S3.21–2004 (R2009)). Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America.
4.
Baese-BerkM. M.BradlowA. R.WrightB. A. (2013). Accent-independent adaptation to foreign accented speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), EL174–EL180.
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version 1.0–4). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4/
6.
BentT.HoltR. F. (2013). The influence of talker and foreign-accent variability on spoken word identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 1677–1686.
7.
BlackJ. W. (1957). Multiple-choice intelligibility tests. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 22(2), 213–235.
8.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.41). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
9.
BondZ. S.MooreT. J. (1994). A note on the acoustic-phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech. Speech Communication, 14(4), 325–337.
BradlowA. R.TorrettaG. M.PisoniD. B. (1996). Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication, 20(3–4), 255–272.
12.
ChurchB. A.SchacterD. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 521–533.
13.
ClopperC. G.BradlowA. R. (2008). Perception of dialect variation in noise: Intelligibility and classification. Language and Speech, 51(3), 175–198.
14.
ClopperC. G.LeviS. V.PisoniD. B. (2006). Perceptual similarity of regional dialects of American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 566–574.
15.
ClopperC. G.PisoniD. B. (2007). Free classification of regional dialects of American English. Journal of Phonetics, 35(3), 421–438.
16.
ClopperC. G.PisoniD. B.de JongK. J. (2005). Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(3), 1661–1676.
17.
GoldingerS. D.PisoniD. B.LoganJ. S. (1991). On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(1), 152–162.
18.
GordonM.LadefogedP. (2001). Phonation types: A cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics, 29(4), 383–406.
19.
HazanV.MarkhamD. (2004). Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(5), 3108–3118.
20.
HodgsonM.SteiningerG.RazaviZ. (2007). Measurement and prediction of speech and noise levels and the Lombard effect in eating establishments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2023–2033.
21.
HoodJ. D.PooleJ. P. (1980). Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech intelligibility. International Journal of Audiology, 19(5), 434–455.
22.
JacewiczE.FoxR. A. (in press). The effects of dialect variation on speech intelligibility in a multitalker background. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1017/S0142716413000489.
23.
KraljicT.BrennanS. E.SamuelA. G. (2008). Accommodating variation: Dialects, idiolects, and speech processing. Cognition, 107(1), 54–81.
24.
LabovW.AshS. (1997). Understanding Birmingham. In BernsteinC.NunnallyT.SabinoR. (Eds.), Language variety in the South revisited (pp. 508–573). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
LiljencrantsJ.LindblomB. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language, 48(4), 839–862.
27.
MasonH. M. (1946). Understandability of speech in noise as affected by region of origin of speaker and listener. Speech Monographs, 13(2), 54–58.
28.
McCloyD. R. (2013, June). Prosody, intelligibility and familiarity in speech perception (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1773/23472/
NeelA. T. (2008). Vowel space characteristics and vowel identification accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(3), 574–585.
31.
NygaardL. C.SommersM. S.PisoniD. B. (1995). Effects of stimulus variability on perception and representation of spoken words in memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(7), 989–1001.
32.
OderA. L.ClopperC. G.FergusonS. H. (2013). Effects of dialect on vowel acoustics and intelligibility. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(01), 23–35.
33.
PalmeriT. J.GoldingerS. D.PisoniD. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 309–328.
34.
PaytonK. L.UchanskiR. M.BraidaL. D. (1994). Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(3), 1581–1592.
35.
PetersonG. E.LehisteI. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(6), 693–703.
36.
PichenyM. A.DurlachN. I.BraidaL. D. (1985). Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28(1), 96–103.
37.
R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.0.2). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
38.
ReedC. E. (1952). The pronunciation of English in the state of Washington. American Speech, 27(3), 186–189.
39.
RothauserE. H.ChapmanW. D.GuttmanN.HeckerM. H. L.NordbyK. S.SilbigerH. R.WeinstockM. (1969). IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 225–246.
40.
SilversteinM. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.
41.
SommersM. S.BarcroftJ. (2007). An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(02), 231–249.
42.
SouzaP. E.GehaniN.WrightR. A.McCloyD. R. (2013). The advantage of knowing the talker. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24(8), 689–700.
43.
TraunmüllerH. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1), 97–100.
44.
WardM. (2003). Portland dialect study: The fronting of /ow, u, uw/ in Portland, Oregon (Masters thesis). Portland State University, Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://www.pds.pdx.edu/Publications/Ward.pdf
45.
WrightR. A. (2004). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In LocalJ.OgdenR.TempleR. (Eds.), Phonetic interpretation (pp. 75–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
WrightR. A.SouzaP. E. (2012). Comparing identification of standardized and regionally valid vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(1), 182–193.
