2008Journal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchRequires access

Vowel Space Characteristics and Vowel Identification Accuracy

Amy T. Neel

Open publisher page 169 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the relation between vowel production characteristics and intelligibility. METHOD: Acoustic characteristics of 10 vowels produced by 45 men and 48 women from the J. M. Hillenbrand, L. A. Getty, M. J. Clark, and K. Wheeler (1995) study were examined and compared with identification accuracy. Global (mean f0, F1, and F2; duration; and amount of formant movement) and fine-grained measures (vowel space area; mean distance among vowels; f0, F1, and F2 ranges; duration ratio between long and short vowels; and formant movement ratio between dynamic and static vowels) were used to predict identification scores. Acoustic measures of the most frequently confused pairs (/ae/-/epsilon/ and /a/-/inverted v/) were compared. RESULTS: Global and fine-grained measures accounted for less than 1/4 of variance in identification scores: Vowel space area alone accounted for 9%-12% of variance. Differences in vowel identification were largely due to poor identification of /ae/, /epsilon/, /a/, or /inverted v/. Well-identified vowels were distinctive in formant frequencies, duration, and amount of formant movement over time. CONCLUSIONS: Distinctiveness among neighboring vowels is more important in determining vowel intelligibility than vowel space area. Acoustic comparison of confused vowels may be more useful in studying intelligibility of normal and disordered speech than in measuring vowel space area.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To examine the relation between vowel production characteristics and intelligibility. METHOD: Acoustic characteristics of 10 vowels produced by 45 men and 48 women from the J. M. Hillenbrand, L. A. Getty, M. J. Clark, and K. Wheeler (1995) study were examined and compared with identification accuracy. Global (mean f0, F1, and F2; duration; and amount of formant movement) and fine-grained measures (vowel space area; mean distance among vowels; f0, F1, and F2 ranges; duration ratio between long and short vowels; and formant movement ratio between dynamic and static vowels) were used to predict identification scores. Acoustic measures of the most frequently confused pairs (/ae/-/epsilon/ and /a/-/inverted v/) were compared. RESULTS: Global and fine-grained measures accounted for less than 1/4 of variance in identification scores: Vowel space area alone accounted for 9%-12% of variance. Differences in vowel identification were largely due to poor identification of /ae/, /epsilon/, /a/, or /inverted v/. Well-identified vowels were distinctive in formant frequencies, duration, and amount of formant movement over time. CONCLUSIONS: Distinctiveness among neighboring vowels is more important in determining vowel intelligibility than vowel space area. Acoustic comparison of confused vowels may be more useful in studying intelligibility of normal and disordered speech than in measuring vowel space area.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 169 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the relation between vowel production characteristics and intelligibility. METHOD: Acoustic characteristics of 10 vowels produced by 45 men and 48 women from the J. M. Hillenbrand, L. A. Getty, M. J. Clark, and K. Wheeler (1995) study were examined and compared with identification accuracy. Global (mean f0, F1, and F2; duration; and amount of formant movement) and fine-grained measures (vowel space area; mean distance among vowels; f0, F1, and F2 ranges; duration ratio between long and short vowels; and formant movement ratio between dynamic and static vowels) were used to predict identification scores. Acoustic measures of the most frequently confused pairs (/ae/-/epsilon/ and /a/-/inverted v/) were compared. RESULTS: Global and fine-grained measures accounted for less than 1/4 of variance in identification scores: Vowel space area alone accounted for 9%-12% of variance. Differences in vowel identification were largely due to poor identification of /ae/, /epsilon/, /a/, or /inverted v/. Well-identified vowels were distinctive in formant frequencies, duration, and amount of formant movement over time. CONCLUSIONS: Distinctiveness among neighboring vowels is more important in determining vowel intelligibility than vowel space area. Acoustic comparison of confused vowels may be more useful in studying intelligibility of normal and disordered speech than in measuring vowel space area.

Key concepts: Vowel, Formant, Mid vowel, Optimal distinctiveness theory, Intelligibility (philosophy), Mathematics, Audiology, Speech recognition

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Vowel Space Characteristics and Vowel Identification Accuracy — Research Paper | ScholarLens