Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Visual Estimates of Talker-to-Listener Distance on Fundamental Frequency in Noise

  • Published:
Human Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lombard speech is an involuntary adaptive change in voicing under the influence of noise. In the current study we examine the relationship between involuntary auditory-speech control, common for Lombard speech, and voluntary control of phonation, which occurs as a result of the visual estimation of the distance to the listener (1 and 4 m). Fundamental frequencies (F0) were estimated in nine normally hearing Russian female speakers aged 20–35 years. An increase in F0 was obtained when the communicative conditions became more complex in both cases of an increase in surrounding background noise level and growth of talker-to-listener distance. In quiet and in noise of 60 and 72 dB the increase in talker-to-listener distance led to F0 increments of 14, 18, and 15 Hz, which did not differ significantly from each other (p > 0.05, n = 288). When the communicative distance was held constant, babble noise of different levels led to significantly different values of ΔF0: for 1 m distance–14 and 32 Hz (p < 0.001, n = 288), and for 4 m–18 and 33 Hz (p < 0.001, n = 288), respectively. The data obtained is evidence of the independent and additive impact of noise and communicative distance on phonation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Hage, S.R. and Nieder, A., Dual neural network model for the evolution of speech and language, Trends Neurosci., 2016, vol. 39, no. 12, p. 813.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brumm, H. and Zollinger, S.A., The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research, Behaviour, 2011, vol. 148, nos. 11−13, p. 1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Luo, J., Hage, S.R., and Moss, C.F., The Lombard effect: from acoustics to neural mechanisms, Trends Neurosci., 2018, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 938.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liénard, J.S. and Di Benedetto, M.G., Effect of vocal effort on spectral properties of vowels, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 1999, vol. 106, no. 1, p. 411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Traunmüller, H. and Eriksson, A., Acoustic effects of variation in vocal effort by men, women, and children, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 2000, vol. 107, no. 6, p. 3438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koenig, L.L. and Fuchs, S., Vowel formants in normal and loud speech, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 2019, vol. 62, no. 5, p. 1278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nonaka, S., Takahashi, R., Enomoto, K., et al., Lombard reflex during PAG-induced vocalization in decerebrate cats, Neurosci. Res., 1997, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hage, S.R., Jürgens, U., and Ehret, G., Audio–vocal interaction in the pontine brainstem during self-initiated vocalization in the squirrel monkey, Eur. J. Neu-rosci., 2006, vol. 23, no. 12, p. 3297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garnier, M., Henrich, N., and Dubois, D., Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 2010, vol. 53, no. 3, p. 588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pick, Jr.H.L., Siegel, G.M., Fox, P.W., et al., Inhibiting the Lombard effect, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 1989, vol. 85, no. 2, p. 894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Therrien, A.S., Lyons, J., and Balasubramaniam, R., Sensory attenuation of self-produced feedback: the Lombard effect revisited, PLoS One, 2012, vol. 7, no. 11, e49370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tonkinson, S., The Lombard effect in choral singing, J. Voice, 1994, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bottalico, P., Graetzer, S., and Hunter, E.J., Effect of training and level of external auditory feedback on the singing voice: volume and quality, J. Voice, 2016, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weisser, A., Miles, K., Richardson, M.J., and Buchholz, J.M., Conversational distance adaptation in noise and its effect on signal-to-noise ratio in realistic listening environments, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 2021, vol. 149, no. 4, p. 2896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fux, T., Feng, G., and Zimpfer, V., Talker-to-listener distance effects on the variations of the intensity and the fundamental frequency of speech, in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, May 22–27, 2011, p. 4964.

  16. Hage, S.R. and Jürgens, U., On the role of the pontine brainstem in vocal pattern generation: a telemetric single-unit recording study in the squirrel monkey, J. Neurosci., 2006, vol. 26, no. 26, p. 7105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pieper, F. and Jürgens, U., Neuronal activity in the inferior colliculus and bordering structures during vocalization in the squirrel monkey, Brain Res., 2003, vol. 979, nos. 1−2, p. 153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pelegrín-García, D., Smits, B., Brunskog, J., and Jeong, C.H., Vocal effort with changing talker-to-listener distance in different acoustic environments, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 2011, vol. 129, no. 4, p. 1981.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Keith, R.W., Development and standardization of SCAN-C test for auditory processing disorders in children, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 2000, vol. 11, no. 8, p. 438.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Andreeva, I.G., Dymnikowa, M., Gvozdeva, A.P., et al., Spatial separation benefit for speech detection in multi-talker babble-noise with different egocentric distances, Acta Acust. United Acust., 2019, vol. 105, no. 3, p. 484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marks, L.E., Binaural summation of loudness: noise and two-tone complexes, Percept. Psychophys., 1980, vol. 27, no. 6, p. 489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Coleman, P.D., An analysis of cues to auditory depth perception in free space, Psychol. Bull., 1963, vol. 60, no. 3, p. 302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shih, C. and Lu, H.Y.D., Effects of talker-to-listener distance on tone, J. Phonetics, 2015, vol. 51, p. 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheyne, H.A., Kalgaonkar, K., Clements, M., and Zurek, P., Talker-to-listener distance effects on speech production and perception, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 2009, vol. 126, no. 4, p. 2052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Meekings, S., Evans, S., Lavan, N., et al., Distinct neural systems recruited when speech production is modulated by different masking sounds, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 2016, vol. 140, no. 1, p. 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Meekings, S. and Scott, S.K., Error in the superior temporal gyrus? A systematic review and activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of speech production studies, J. Cognit. Neurosci., 2021, vol. 33, no. 3, p. 422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 22-25-00068).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia

    A. M. Lunichkin, A. P. Gvozdeva & I. G. Andreeva

Authors
  1. A. M. Lunichkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. P. Gvozdeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. G. Andreeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. M. Lunichkin.

Ethics declarations

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

All studies were carried out in accordance with the principles of biomedical ethics, formulated in the Declaration of Helsinki 1964 and its subsequent updates, And approved by the local ethics committee of the Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry (St. Petersburg).

Informed consent. Each participant in the study provided a voluntary written informed consent signed by him after explaining to him the potential risks and benefits, as well as the nature of the upcoming study.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare the absence of obvious and potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

A.M. Lunichkin, I.G. Andreeva, and A.P. Gvozdeva—the idea of work and the planning of the experiment, A.P. Gvozdeva—preparation of the methodology, A.M. Lunichkin—data collection and processing, A.M. Lunichkin, I.G. Andreeva, and A.P. Gvozdev—writing and editing the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lunichkin, A.M., Gvozdeva, A.P. & Andreeva, I.G. The Impact of Visual Estimates of Talker-to-Listener Distance on Fundamental Frequency in Noise. Hum Physiol 49, 281–288 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0362119723700226

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0362119723700226

Keywords:

Search

Navigation