We proposed three different "speech intelligibility indices:" speech probability (PS), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and weighted signal-to-noise ratio (WSNR).
An experiment is presented which demonstrates the differences in speech intelligibility scores that occur when different speakers are employed.
Overall, the results indicate that large variations between the speech intelligibility of different languages can occur, especially for spaces that are expected to be challenging in terms of room acoustic conditions.
It was also concluded, that the evaluated types of grouping in the preschool classroom, create different areas with varying intelligibility, allowing to identify were it is necessary to make reinforcements on surface finishes within the classrooms, and to identify places that are optimal location for teachers.
In contrast, the proposed method can steadily and effectively improve the speech intelligibility in different noisy reverberant environments.
In [25], for example, sentence intelligibility in different types of noise for hearing-impaired listeners was investigated.
What unites them, for Smith, is that, in different ways, they confer intelligibility on actions (Smith 1994, 95. For sceptical comment on this, see Dancy 1995, section I).
Furthermore, compared with the multizone and ASII methods, the combination method can significantly improve the speech intelligibility in different noisy and reverberant environments.
Thirty years later, a study conducted by Hu and Loizou [1] found that none of the examined eight different algorithms improved speech intelligibility relative to unprocessed (corrupted) speech.
The pre-theoretical is not experience that is a pure given or unconceptualized, nor is it necessarily experience that is universal in its significance and intelligibility across different traditions of thought and culture.
