Assessment of Acoustic Markers of Conversational Difficulty
Loading...
Date
2024-09-06
Authors
Advisor
MacDonald, Ewen
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Waterloo
Abstract
Human conversations, one of the most complex behaviors, require the real-time coordination
of speech production and comprehension, involving cognitive, social, and biological
dimensions. There has been a rising need for laboratory and clinical assessments to evolve
to capture the essence of everyday interactions. The cognitive demands of interactive conversation,
which require listeners to process and store information while simultaneously
planning their responses, often exceed those encountered in standard clinical tests. These
assessments must encompass diverse contexts and participant groups, including varying
hearing statuses, challenging listening environments such as background noise, the use of
assistive devices that may alter the listening experience, and different conversation types
such as relational versus transactional exchanges, dyadic versus group interactions, and
face-to-face versus remote interactions.
This study consists of two investigations exploring how different conditions affect acoustic
measures of speech production and conversational behavior. The first study was an
extension of a study originally conducted for content analysis and participants’ subjective
rating questionnaires, focusing on hearing-impaired (HI) individuals. It examined the
impact of face masks and remote microphones on communication dynamics. Four native
English-speaking HI participants engaged in free-form conversations within small groups
under a constant background noise of 55 dBA. Interestingly, the results showed that using
remote microphones shortened floor-transfer offsets (FTOs) and extended conversation durations,
suggesting improved communication. When participants did not wear a face mask,
interpausal unit (IPU) durations were shorter with remote microphones than without, indicating
easier communication. However, no significant difference was found between the
two mask conditions, suggesting that face masks affect both speech perception and production
by decreasing inhalation and exhalation volumes, thereby limiting the duration of
utterances. Face masks are speculated to increase resistance to airflow, reducing subglottal
pressure and consequently lowering fundamental frequency (F0). Despite no significant
differences in articulation rate and floor transfer rate, the constant noise environment, presented
at lower levels compared to previous studies, may have likely limited the potential
for pronounced effects.
The second study involved normal-hearing (NH) individuals, investigating the effects of
conversation type (free-form vs. task-based) and noise presence (70 dB SPL) on conversational
dynamics. Dyadic interactions among NH participants were examined. Task-based
conversations exhibited structured patterns with longer FTOs and higher floor transfer
rates, while free-form conversations showed greater FTO variability, more frequent overlaps,
longer IPUs, and increased pause durations and rates. Noise presence increased IPU
durations and pause lengths but did not significantly alter floor-transfer rates or FTO
variability. Both conversation types experienced increased articulation rates and speech
levels in noise. Contrary to the expected change as part of the Lombard effect, the increase
in articulation rates may be attributed to the noise acting as a stressor. Meanwhile, the
increase in mean speech levels was less pronounced than expected, possibly due to the
specific noise characteristics and the use of closed headphones.
These studies shine a light on the complexity of communicative interactions and the
necessity of accounting for a wide spectrum of factors in experimental designs. The findings
highlight the importance of considering both environmental conditions and conversation
types when researching speech perception, production, and conversational dynamics. This
research provides valuable insights for academic studies and the development of hearing-assistive
technologies, emphasizing the need for assessments that reflect the varied nature
of everyday communication.