EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 9 (2025) Acta Acust., 9 (2025) 42 References
Open Access
Issue
Acta Acust.
Volume 9, 2025
Article Number 42
Number of page(s) 8
Section Speech
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2025025
Published online 17 July 2025
  1. J.M. Hillenbrand, M.J. Clark: The role of f0 and formant frequencies in distinguishing the voices of men and women. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71 (2009) 1150–1166 [Google Scholar]
  2. C.D. Fuller, E. Gaudrain, J.N. Clarke, J.J. Galvin, Q.-J. Fu, R.H. Free, D. Baskent: Gender categorization is abnormal in cochlear implant users. Journal of The Association for Research in Otolaryngology 15 (2014) 1037–1048 [Google Scholar]
  3. M.S. Poon, M.L. Ng: The role of fundamental frequency and formants in voice gender identification. Speech, Language and Hearing 18 (2015) 161–165 [Google Scholar]
  4. P.F. Assmann, T.M. Nearey: Identification of frequency-shifted vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124 (2008) 3203–3212 [Google Scholar]
  5. M.D. Vestergaard, N.R. Fyson, R.D. Patterson: The interaction of vocal characteristics and audibility in the recognition of concurrent syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125 (2009) 1114–1124 [Google Scholar]
  6. E. Holmes, Y. Domingo, I.S. Johnsrude: Familiar voices are more intelligible, even if they are not recognized as familiar. Psychological Science 29 (2018) 1575–1583 [Google Scholar]
  7. J. Yang, X. Wang, V. Costa, L. Xu: Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal tract resonance on sentence recognition in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 68 (2025) 3011–3022 [Google Scholar]
  8. X. Wang, L. Xu: English vowel recognition in multi-talker babbles mixed with different numbers of talkers. JASA Express Letters 4 (2024) 045202 [Google Scholar]
  9. M.L. Lecumberri, M. Cooke: Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119 (2006) 2445–2454 [Google Scholar]
  10. M. Broersma, O. Scharenborg: Native and non-native listeners’ perception of English consonants in different types of noise. Speech Communication 52 (2010) 980–995 [Google Scholar]
  11. S.H. Jin, C. Liu: English sentence recognition in speech-shaped noise and multi-talker babble for English-, Chinese-, and Korean-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132 (2012) EL391–EL397 [Google Scholar]
  12. L. Mi, S. Tao, W. Wang, Q. Dong, S.H. Jin, C. Liu: English vowel identification in long-term speech-shaped noise and multi-talker babble for English and Chinese listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133 (2013) EL391–EL397 [Google Scholar]
  13. L. Zhong, C. Liu, S. Tao: Sentence recognition for native and non-native English listeners in quiet and babble: effects of contextual cues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145 (2019) EL297–EL302 [Google Scholar]
  14. D.S. Brungart: Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109 (2001) 1101–1109 [Google Scholar]
  15. C.J. Darwin, D.S. Brungart, B.D. Simpson: Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114 (2003) 2913–2922 [Google Scholar]
  16. H.E. Cullington, F.G. Zeng: Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123 (2008) 450–461 [Google Scholar]
  17. G. Kidd, C.R. Mason, J. Swaminathan, E. Roverud, K.K. Clayton, V. Best: Determining the energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140 (2016) 132–144 [Google Scholar]
  18. J. Zhang, X. Wang, N.Y. Wang, X. Fu, T. Gan, J.J. Galvin III, S. Willis, K. Xu, M. Thomas, Q.J. Fu: Tonal language speakers are better able to segregate competing speech according to talker sex differences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 63 (2020) 2801–2810 [Google Scholar]
  19. M.M. Flaherty, E. Buss, L.J. Leibold: Independent and combined effects of fundamental frequency and vocal tract length differences for school-age children's sentence recognition in a two-talker masker. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 64, 1 (2021) 206–217 [Google Scholar]
  20. I.S.P. Nation: Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Newbury House, New York, 1990 [Google Scholar]
  21. K. Lemhöfer, M. Broersma: Introducing LexTALE: a quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods 44 (2012) 325–343 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. A. Coxhead: A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34 (2000) 213–238 [Google Scholar]
  23. M. Nilsson, S.D. Soli, J.A. Sullivan: Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95, 2 (1994) 1085–1099 [Google Scholar]
  24. P. Boersma, D. Weenink: Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.4.04) [Computer software]. 2020 Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/ [Google Scholar]
  25. S.A. Simpson, M. Cooke: Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118 (2005) 2775–2778 [Google Scholar]
  26. S. Rosen, P. Souza, C. Ekelund, A.A. Majeed: Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133 (2013) 2431–2443 [Google Scholar]
  27. G.A. Studebaker: A “rationalized” arcsine transform. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 28 (1985) 455–462 [Google Scholar]
  28. S. Tao, Y. Chen, W. Wang, Q. Dong, S.H. Jin, C. Liu: English consonant identification in multi-talker babble: effects of Chinese-native listeners’ English experience. Language and Speech 62, 3 (2019) 531–545 [Google Scholar]
  29. K.J. Van Engen: Similarity and familiarity: second language sentence recognition in first-and second-language multi-talker babble. Speech Communication 52, 11, 12 (2010) 943–953 [Google Scholar]
  30. A. Stuart, J. Zhang, S. Swink: Reception thresholds for sentences in quiet and noise for monolingual English and bilingual Mandarin–English listeners. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 21, 04 (2010) 239–248 [Google Scholar]
  31. M. Li, W. Wang, S. Tao, Q. Dong, J. Guan, C. Liu: Mandarin Chinese vowel-plus-tone identification in noise: effects of language experience. Hearing Research 331 (2016) 109–118 [Google Scholar]
  32. J. Guan, X. Cao, C. Liu: Second language experience facilitates sentence recognition in temporally-modulated noise for non-native listeners. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021) 631060 [Google Scholar]
  33. H. Yin, C. Liu: Effect of listeners’ language backgrounds on pure tone detection in temporally modulated noise. JASA Express Letters 1 (2021) 094402 [Google Scholar]
  34. A.R. Bradlow, G.M. Torretta, D.B. Pisoni: Intelligibility of normal speech I: global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication 20 (1996) 255–272 [Google Scholar]
  35. D. Markham, V. Hazan: The effect of talker-and listener-related factors on intelligibility for a real-word, open-set perception test. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 47 (2004) 725–737 [Google Scholar]
  36. D.R. McCloy, R.A. Wright, P.E. Souza: Talker versus dialect effects on speech intelligibility: a symmetrical study. Language and Speech 58 (2015) 371–386 [Google Scholar]
  37. S.E. Yoho, S.A. Borrie, T.S. Barrett, D.B. Whittaker: Are there sex effects for speech intelligibility in American English? Examining the influence of talker, listener, and methodology. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 81 (2019) 558–570 [Google Scholar]
  38. R.L. Bundgaard-Nielsen, C.T. Best, M.D. Tyler: Vocabulary size matters: the assimilation of second-language Australian English vowels to first-language Japanese vowel categories. Applied Psycholinguistics 32 (2011) 51–67 [Google Scholar]
  39. L. Kilman, A. Zekveld, M. Hällgren, J. Rönnberg: The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014) 651 [Google Scholar]
  40. J. Yang, N. Nagaraj, B. Magimairaj: Audiovisual perception of interrupted speech by non-native listeners. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 86 (2024) 1763–1776 [Google Scholar]
  41. C. Foo, M. Rudner, J. Rönnberg, T. Lunner: Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 18 (2007) 618–631 [Google Scholar]
  42. T. Lunner, E. Sundewall-Thorén: Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening condition: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 18, 7 (2007) 604–617 [Google Scholar]
  43. M. Rudner, J. Rönnberg, T. Lunner: Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 22, 3 (2011) 156–167 [Google Scholar]
  44. W.K. Yumba: Influences of listener gender and working memory capacity on speech recognition in noise for hearing aid users. Speech, Language and Hearing 25, 2 (2022) 112–124 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.