2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107448
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring the speech level and the student activity in lecture halls: Visual- vs blind-segmentation methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main room and intelligibility criteria measured in unoccupied condition are also provided: the reverberation time (T 30 ) at mid frequencies and the speech transmission index (STI) (EN ISO (2008); BS EN (2011); UNI (2018); DIN ( 2016)). The second campaign of measurements was intended to obtain sound pressure levels related to the student activity (D'Orazio et al (2020)). Therefore, it was performed in occupied state by recording an entire day of lessons in each hall.…”
Section: Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The main room and intelligibility criteria measured in unoccupied condition are also provided: the reverberation time (T 30 ) at mid frequencies and the speech transmission index (STI) (EN ISO (2008); BS EN (2011); UNI (2018); DIN ( 2016)). The second campaign of measurements was intended to obtain sound pressure levels related to the student activity (D'Orazio et al (2020)). Therefore, it was performed in occupied state by recording an entire day of lessons in each hall.…”
Section: Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since there is no standard measurement procedure, scholars assessed the student activity by means of sound level meters and employing various approaches. Some analyses are based on the equivalent and percentile levels (Shield et al (2015); Bottalico and Astolfi (2012)), others exploited machine learning algorithms (Hodgson et al (1999); Peng et al (2018); Choi (2020); Sato and Bradley (2012);D'Orazio et al (2020); Wang et al (2020)).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Everyday communication in classrooms takes place in the presence of concurrent noise, mainly generated by the students themselves (e.g., voices, movements), whose dynamical behavior strongly impacts the acoustic quality of the classroom [1]. One of the most challenging conditions for school-aged children is when the teacher's message is masked by informative noise (i.e., a masker composed of a small number of speech streams).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As far as the acoustic scenario is concerned, face masks affect speech communication, leading to excessive vocal effort for the talker and increased listening effort for the listener [ 5 , 8 ] due to several factors. Among others, it is worth considering: (i) the use of face masks, which differ in material and shape, (ii) the communication intent and situation (e.g., talking with a spontaneous or a clear speech [ 9 ]), (iii) the characteristics of talkers and listeners (e.g., having or not having voice pathologies [ 6 ], using or not using a voice amplification system [ 10 ], being or not being either normal hearing or mother-tongue [ 11 ]), (iv) the acoustic environmental conditions (e.g., noise and reverberation [ 12 ]). However, for the aim of the present pilot study, the latter was not considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%