Twenty subjects listened to CNC word lists compressed at a 2: 1 compression ratio using four different discard intervals, 40, 50, 60, and 70 milliseconds. The stimuli were presented to the subjects both dichotically and diotically. Results indicated a clear advantage in word intelligibility of time-compressed speech at discard intervals from 40 to 70 milliseconds when the signal was presented dichotically. Intelligibility was found to decline rapidly, however, under diotic presentation when the discard interval exceeded 50 to 60 milliseconds. Intelligibility scores for all discard intervals, dichotic presentation, remained above 90%.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berlin, C.I. ( 1970). Personal communication.
2.
Berlin, C.I., Lowe-Bell, S.S., Cullen, J.K., JR., and Thompson, C.L. ( 1973). Dichotic speech perception: An interpretation of right-ear advantage and temporal offset effects. 7. acoust. Soc. Amer., 53, 699-709.
3.
Foulke, E. and Wirth, E.M. ( 1969). A comparison of 'dichotic' speech and speech compressed by the electromechanical sampling method. In Foulke, E. (ed.). The Comprehension of Rapid Speech by the Blind, Part III. (Nonvisual Perceptual Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Louisville).
4.
Gerber, S.E. ( 1968). Dichotic and diotic presentation of speeded speech . J. Commun., 18, 272-282.
5.
Gerber, S.E. ( 1969a). Monotic vs. diotic presentation of dichotic speeded speech. J. Commun., -19, 325-334.
6.
Gerber, S.E. ( 1969b). Scientific computation in speech research, Computer Studies in the Humanities and Verbal Behavior., 2, 211-217.
7.
Gerber, S.E. ( 1972). Interaural phase angle and the release from masking . Audiology, 11, 271-276.
8.
Gerber, S.E. and Pezzullo, F.F. ( 1974). The limits of speech time-compression. In Duker, S. (ed.). Time-Compressed Speech . (Metuchen, N.J.).
9.
Gerber, S.E. and Scott, R.J. ( 1971). Dichotic speech time-compression. In Foulke, E. (ed.). Proc. of the 2nd Louisville Conf. on Rate and/or Frequency-Controlled Speech (University of Louisville), 47-59.
10.
Lowe, S.S., Cullen, J.K., JR., Thompson, C.L., Berlin, C.I., Kirkpatrick, L. and Ryan, J.T. ( 1969). Dichotic and monotic simultaneous and time-staggered speech. Paper presented to the 78th Meeting of the Acoust. Soc. Amer., San Diego.
11.
Peterson, G.E. and Lehiste, 1. (1962). Revised CNC Lists for auditory tests. J. Speech Hear. Dis. , 27, 62-70.
12.
Porter, R.D., Shankweiler, D. and Liberman, A.M. ( 1969). Differential effects of binaural time differences on perception of stop consonants and vowels. Paper presented to the 77th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Assoc.
13.
Scott, R.J. ( 1965). Temporal Effects in Speech Analysis and Synthesis, Report No. 15 of the Commun. Sciences Lab. (University of Michigan ).
14.
Scott, R.J. ( 1967). Time adjustment in speech synthesis. J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 41, 60-65.
15.
Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Shankweiler, D. ( 1970). Hemispheric specialization for speech perception . J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 48, 579-594.
