Background noise and reverberation can impede speech intelligibility. The clarity of speech holds particular significance in communal spaces like dining halls. Nevertheless, such venues often exhibit inadequate acoustic configurations for interactive dialog, characterized by high levels of background noise and reverberation. The present investigation examines how well individuals comprehend speech combined with noise within four campus dining halls at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. A speech intelligibility test was implemented in the four dining halls using binaural room impulse responses (BRIRs) captured through two Head and Torso Simulators (HATS). These BRIRs were then convolved with the recorded speech stimuli (QuickSIN) to replicate real listening conditions. While it is well established that lower reverberation times improve speech intelligibility, this study shows how targeted acoustic interventions can enhance communication within university dining halls.
LombardE.Le signe de l’élévation de la voix. Annales des Maladies de l’Oreille, du Larynx, du Nez et du Pharynx1911; 37: 101–119.
2.
CherryEC.Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am1953; 25: 975–979.
3.
HodgsonMSteiningerGRazaviZ.Measurement and prediction of speech and noise levels and the Lombard effect in eating establishments. J Acoust Soc Am2007; 121(4): 2023–2033.
4.
ISO, ISO 9921:2003. Ergonomics — Assessment of speech communication, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
5.
KangJ.Numerical modelling of the speech intelligibility in dining spaces. Appl Acoust2002; 63(12): 1315–1333.
6.
LauP.The Lombard effect as a communicative phenomenon. UC Berkeley PhonLab Annual Report2008; 4(4).
7.
LazarusH.Prediction of verbal communication in noise—a development of generalized SIL curves and the quality of communication (part 2). Appl Acoust1987; 20(4): 245–261.
8.
SmiljanićRBradlowAR.Speaking and hearing clearly: talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Lang Linguist Compass2009; 3(1): 236–264.
9.
DreherJJO’NeillJJ.Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility of words and phrases. Laryngoscope1958; 68(3): 539–548.
10.
PickettJM.Effects of vocal force on the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am1956; 28(5): 902–905.
11.
PremingerJETasellDJV. Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res1995; 38(3): 714–725.
12.
BattagliaP.Speech recognition in reverberation and background chatter. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2017, p. 015002.
13.
CullingJFHodderKITohCY.Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. J Acoust Soc Am2003; 114(5): 2871–2876.
14.
TangSKChanDWTChanKC.Prediction of sound-pressure level in an occupied enclosure. J Acoust Soc Am1997; 101(5): 2990–2993.
15.
IshikawaKNudelmanCParkS, et alPerception and acoustic studies of vowel intelligibility in dysphonic speech. J Voice2021; 35(4): 659.e11–659.e24.
16.
MattysSLDavisMHBradlowAR, et alSpeech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process2012; 27(7-8): 953–978.
PaytonKLUchanskiRMBraidaLD.Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am1994; 95(3): 1581–1592.
19.
PichenyMADurlachNIBraidaLD.Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res1985; 28(1): 96–103.
20.
SmiljanićRBradlowAR.Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. J Acoust Soc Am2005; 118(3 Pt 1): 1677–1688.
21.
UchanskiRMChoiSSBraidaLD, et alSpeaking clearly for the hard of hearing iv: further studies of the role of speaking rate. J Speech Lang Hear Res1996; 39(3): 494–509.
22.
LindblomB.Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory. Speech Production and Speech Modeling/Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990.
23.
PerkellJSZandipourMMatthiesML, et alEconomy of effort in different speaking conditions. I. A preliminary study of intersubject differences and modeling issues. J Acoust Soc Am2002; 112(4): 1627–1641.
24.
GreenbergSAinsworthWAFayRR. (Eds.). Speech processing in the auditory system. Springer Science + Business Media, 2004.
25.
NábĕlekAKLetowskiTR.Similarities of vowels in nonreverberant and reverberant fields. J Acoust Soc Am1988; 83(5): 1891–1899.
26.
NábĕlekAKLetowskiTRTuckerFM.Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. J Acoust Soc Am1989; 86(4): 1259–1265.
27.
NielsenNOSanturetteSJeongCH.Subjective evaluation of restaurant acoustics in a virtual sound environment. In INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Vol. 253, No. 2, 2016.
28.
KillionMCNiquettePA.What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient’s SNR loss?Hear J2000; 53(3): 46–48.
29.
NudelmanCJBottalicoPCantor-CutivaLC.The effects of room acoustics on self-reported vocal fatigue: a systematic review. J Voice2025; 39(4): 1131.e11-1131.e30.
30.
RindelJH.Restaurant acoustics–Verbal communication in eating establishments. Acoust Pr2019; 7: 1–14.
31.
RindelJH.Verbal communication and noise in eating establishments. Appl Acoust2010; 71(12): 1156–1161.
32.
MartellottaFD’OrazioDDe CarolisD, et alAcoustic comfort in primary- and nursery-school canteens: from measurements to recommendations. Appl Acoust2025; 228: 110324.
33.
NahidMHodgsonM.Prediction of optimal conditions for verbal-communication quality in eating establishments. J Acoust Soc Am2011; 129(4): 2005–2014.
34.
CullingJFGochevaRLiY, et alThe effects of ceiling height and absorber placement on speech intelligibility in simulated restaurants. Acoust Sci Technol2020; 41(1): 223–228.
35.
KennedySMHodgsonMEdgettLD, et alSubjective assessment of listening environments in university classrooms: perceptions of students. J Acoust Soc Am2006; 119(1): 299–309.
36.
WilsonRHMcArdleRASmithSL.An evaluation of the bkb-sin, hint, quicksin, and win materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res2007; 50(4): 844–856.
37.
XiaJXuBPentonyS, et alEffects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility in normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am2018; 143(3): 1523–1533.
38.
BottalicoP.Lombard effect, ambient noise, and willingness to spend time and money in a restaurant. J Acoust Soc Am2018; 144(3): EL209–EL214.
39.
BottalicoPPiperRLegnerB.Lombard effect, ambient noise and willingness to spend time and Money in a restaurant amongst older adults. In Forum Acusticum, 2020, pp. 3055–3062.
40.
MoulderRLubmanD.Proposed guidelines for quiet areas in restaurants for hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am1995; 97(5_Supplement): 3262.
41.
AslaksenFBerghSBringaOR, et alUniversell utforming. Planlegging og design for alle. In: funksjonshemmede Rf (Ed.). Oslo: Dep, 1997.
42.
RindelJH.Acoustical capacity as a means of noise control in eating establishments. Proc., Joint Baltic-Nordic Acoustics Meeting (BNAM), Odense, Denmark, 18–20June2012.
43.
ChristieLH.Psycho-to-building acoustics: are bars, cafes, and restaurants acceptable acoustic environments? PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 2004.
44.
HodgsonMRazaviZSteiningerG.Evaluation of acoustical environments in eating establishments. Build Acoust2009; 16(2): 125–148.
45.
BottalicoP.Speech intelligibility in dining halls. In AstolfiAAsdrubaliFShtrepiL (Eds.), Proc., 10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association (Forum Acusticum 2023), European Acoustics Association, Turin, Italy, 2023.
46.
HefnerJEisenbergD.Social support and mental health among college students. Am J Orthopsychiatry2009; 79(4): 491–499.
47.
WoodsKJPSiegelMHTraerJ, et alHeadphone screening to facilitate web-based auditory experiments. Atten Percept Psychophys2017; 79(7): 2064–2072.
48.
MilneAEBiancoRPooleKC, et alAn online headphone screening test based on dichotic pitch. Behav Res Methods2021; 53(4): 1551–1562.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 3382-2:2008. Acoustics — Measurement of room acoustic parameters — Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary rooms. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
51.
MooreBCStoneMAFüllgrabeC, et alSpectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies, and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear2008; 29(6): 907–922.
KillionMCNiquettePAGudmundsenGI, et alDevelopment of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am2004; 116(4 Pt 1): 2395–2405.
BatesDMaechlerMBolkerB, et allme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. J Stat Softw2015; 67(1): 1–48.
56.
HothornTBretzFWestfallP.Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal (Biometrische Zeitschrift), 2008; 50(3), 346–363. Wiley-VCH (German & Austro-Swiss Regions of the International Biometric Society). Edited by BrunnerEdgarSchumacherMartin.
