2015
DOI: 10.1121/1.4936643
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of voice style, noise level, and acoustic feedback on objective and subjective voice evaluations

Abstract: Speakers adjust their vocal effort when communicating in different room acoustic and noise conditions and when instructed to speak at different volumes. The present paper reports on the effects of voice style, noise level, and acoustic feedback on vocal effort, evaluated as sound pressure level, and self-reported vocal fatigue, comfort, and control. Speakers increased their level in the presence of babble and when instructed to talk in a loud style, and lowered it when acoustic feedback was increased and when … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

4
11
2
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
(10 reference statements)
4
11
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This difference could be explained on the basis of the number of instructions about voice style: fewer instructions will correspond to a larger dynamic range of the voice across styles. Bottalico et al (2015), in a similar experiment that involved instructing talkers to use three voice styles (soft, normal, and loud), found a smaller dynamic range than the one reported in the present study (6.8 dB between loud and normal, and 7.8 dB between normal and soft). A second possible explanation could be that the dynamic range of speech in noisy conditions might tend to be smaller than the range in quiet conditions (Bottalico et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This difference could be explained on the basis of the number of instructions about voice style: fewer instructions will correspond to a larger dynamic range of the voice across styles. Bottalico et al (2015), in a similar experiment that involved instructing talkers to use three voice styles (soft, normal, and loud), found a smaller dynamic range than the one reported in the present study (6.8 dB between loud and normal, and 7.8 dB between normal and soft). A second possible explanation could be that the dynamic range of speech in noisy conditions might tend to be smaller than the range in quiet conditions (Bottalico et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…Bottalico et al (2015), in a similar experiment that involved instructing talkers to use three voice styles (soft, normal, and loud), found a smaller dynamic range than the one reported in the present study (6.8 dB between loud and normal, and 7.8 dB between normal and soft). A second possible explanation could be that the dynamic range of speech in noisy conditions might tend to be smaller than the range in quiet conditions (Bottalico et al, 2015). This might occur because speech produced in a noisy environment will be higher in level than speech produced in a quiet environment (Lombard effect), all else being equal.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…An understanding of the nature of a speaker’s response to their environment can throw light on speech communication and vocal limitations caused by overuse of the voice [24, 25]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), kiek mažesnis triukšmas buvo trumpųjų pertraukų metu. Vaikų plepėjimas paprastai siekia L Aeq 61-65 dBA [21,22]. Tačiau trypimas, spintelių durų varstymas ar kamuolio bumsėjimas sukelia papildomą aplinkos triukšmą, prie kurio mokiniai taiko savo balso galimybes ir tokiu būdu pasiekiamas žymiai didesnis triukšmo lygis, nei tik kalbė-jimas ramioje aplinkoje.…”
Section: Rezultatų Aptarimasunclassified