This study evaluates the speech reception performance of native (L1) and non-native (L2) normal-hearing young adults in acoustical conditions containing varying amounts of reverberation and background noise. Two metrics were used and compared: the intelligibility score and the response time, taken as a behavioral measure of listening effort. Listening tests were conducted in auralized acoustical environments with L1 and L2 English-speaking university students. It was found that even though the two groups achieved the same, close to the maximum accuracy, L2 participants manifested longer response times in every acoustical condition, suggesting an increased involvement of cognitive resources in the speech reception process.
Garcia LecumberriMLCookeMCutlerA.Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: a review. Speech Commun2010; 52: 864–886.
2.
KilmanLZekveldAHällgrenMet al. The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Front Psychol2014; 5: 651.
3.
van WijngaardenSJSteenekenHJMHoutgastT.Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am2002; 111: 1906–1916.
4.
FlorentineM.Non-native listeners’ perception of American-English in noise. In: Proceedings of the 1985 international conference on noise control engineering, Munich, 18–20 September 1985, pp. 1021–1024. Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
5.
van WijngaardenSJBronkhorstAWHoutgastTet al. Using the Speech Transmission Index for predicting non-native speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am2004; 115: 1281–1291.
6.
EN 60268-16:2011. Sound system equipment—part 16: objective rating of speech intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index.
7.
PengZEWangLM.Effects of noise, reverberation and foreign accent on native and non-native listeners’ performance of English speech comprehension. J Acoust Soc Am2016; 139: 2772–2783.
8.
ANSI/ASA S12.60:2010. Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for schools, part 1: permanent schools.
9.
ProdiNVisentinCFarnetaniA.Intelligibility, listening difficulty and listening efficiency in auralized classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am2010; 128: 172–181.
10.
HoubenRvan Doorn-BiermanMDreschlerWA.Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort. Int J Audiol2013; 52: 753–776.
11.
ProdiNVisentinCFelettiA.On the perception of speech in primary school classrooms: ranking of noise interference and of age influence. J Acoust Soc Am2013; 133: 255–268.
12.
PalsCSarampalisAvan RijnHet al. Validation of a simple response time measure of listening effort. J Acoust Soc Am2015; 138: EL187–EL192.
13.
MealingsKTDemuthKBuchholzJet al. The development of the Mealings, Demuth, Dillon, and Buchholz Classroom Speech perception test. J Speech Lang Hear R2015; 58: 1350–1362.
14.
UslarVNCarrollRHankeMet al. Development and evaluation of a linguistically and audiologically controlled sentence intelligibility test. J Acoust Soc Am2013; 134: 3039–3056.
15.
LewisDSchmidKO’LearySet al. Effects of noise on speech recognition and listening effort in children with normal hearing and children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear R2016; 59: 1218–1232.
16.
HällgrenMLarsbyBLyxellBet al. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing-impaired persons. J Am Acad Audiol2001; 12: 357–370.
17.
McGarrigleRMunroKJDawesPet al. Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group “white paper.”Int J Audiol2014; 53: 433–440.
18.
ANSI S3.2-2009. Method for measuring the intelligibility of speech over communication systems.
19.
ISO 9921:2003. Ergonomics—assessment of speech communication.
20.
McCarthyKMMahonMRosenSet al. Speech perception and production by sequential bilingual children: a longitudinal study of voice onset time acquisition. Child Dev2014; 85: 1965–1980.
21.
DarcyIKrügerF.Vowel production and perception in Turkish children acquiring L2 German. J Phonetics2012; 40: 568–581.
22.
R Core Team. R: “a language and environment for statistical computing.”Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017, https://www.R-project.org/
23.
SteenekenHJM. On measuring and predicting speech intelligibility. Soesterberg: TNO Institute for Perception, 1992, p. 162.
24.
van den Tillaart-HaverkateMde Ronde-BronsIDreschlerWAet al. The influence of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, response times to speech, and perceived listening effort in normal-hearing listeners. Trends Hear2017; 21: 1–13.
25.
KjellbergA.Effects of reverberation time on the cognitive load in speech communication: theoretical considerations. Noise Health2004; 7: 11–21.
26.
NorrisDMcQueenJMCutlerA.Competition and segmentation in spoken-word recognition. J Exp Psychol Learn1995; 21: 1209–1228.
27.
BroersmaMCutlerA.Phantom word activation in L2. System2008; 36: 22–34.
