Content uploaded by Luis Gomez-Agustina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luis Gomez-Agustina on Mar 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
ICSV14
Cairns • Australia
9-12 July, 2007
COMPARISON OF SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY
MEASUREMENTS IN A DIFFUSE SPACE
L. GOMEZ1,C. NESTORAS2,S. DANCE2,S. MURANO1
1. Telent plc, Harbour Exchange Square, Docklands, London E14 9GE, UK
2. Acoustics Group, School of Engineering, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK
louis.gomez@telent.com
Abstract
An on-site experiment was undertaken in the ticket hall of London’s Heathrow Terminal 4
Underground station. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the speech
intelligibility obtained from two distinct measuring systems characterized by their open-loop
and closed-loop configurations. Previous acoustic measurements in the space of interest
showed significant diffuse field characteristics. Two additional comparative analyses were
also undertaken, contrasting intelligibility results between multi and single source as well as
derived STI values against STI-PA meter readings.
The station’s public address system (multi-source) and a single omni-directional source were
utilized in turn for the tests. Both sound sources were driven by an amplified e-swept sine
signal. Impulse response derived RT and STI parameters were obtained by using WinMLS
and Dirac measuring and post-processing systems. WinMLS in closed loop mode requires
long source and receiver cables, while Dirac in open loop mode reduces the requirement for
hazardous cabling, particularly when the existing station’s PA system is used as a source, by
employing a hand-held sound recording SLM as a receiver.
Similar STI values were obtained for both open and closed loop systems. The close agreement
in the STI values obtained from multi-source and single-source configurations suggested that
both methods may be valid to excite an acoustic diffuse field space to measure speech
intelligibility. STIPA readings were in agreement with derived STI values.
1. INTRODUCTION
Speech intelligibility issues have been increasingly gaining importance over recent years.
Applications of the topic can be nowadays highlighted in a multitude of working
environments, ranging from classroom conditions to voice alarm systems for emergency
announcements. Concentrating on the fact that measurement of intelligibility can be finally
acknowledged as a key process, this paper considers the acoustical conditions of underground
ICSV14 • 9-12 July 2007 • Cairns • Australia
train stations in particular, for which speech intelligibility would unavoidably comprise a
critical characteristic of the quality of service provided to the public (i.e. commuters). Focus is
on the measurement implementation.
Currently, several measurement systems and procedures exist and can be used for this purpose
[1]. In the current investigation, two measurement systems were employed and results
compared for the ticket hall of Heathrow Terminal 4 Underground station; the systems
characterized by their closed and open loop configurations. For the latter case, measurements
could be performed without the use of long cables, requiring however post processing of the
data for any results to be obtained. For the closed loop configuration, the measurement system
could provide with a basic output instantly, having however the need for cables to close the
loop. The choice of one of the two configurations could be determined by the environment to
be measured since both systems had good and bad points. Nonetheless, a comparable
performance needs to be assumed in this case. This paper is based on a comparison of results
between the two systems (for the current conditions) in the attempt to validate the
measurement procedure.
Furthermore, two different source configurations were investigated for both systems; using a
single omni-directional loudspeaker (single source) and the station’s P. A. system (multi-
source). In this case, it was implied that measurements using the existing multi-source
configuration of a space (i.e. no additional equipment needed by the acoustic consultant)
would comprise a more efficient procedure in terms of time and resources. In addition, no
long cables are required for the sound source, for either measurement system. Results
obtained in this sense, are presented and discussed here as a comparative performance
evaluation of the P.A. vs. the omni directional source.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Speech Intelligibility is defined as a measure of the proportion of the content of a speech
message that can be correctly understood [2]. This metric is one of the most important
attributes of a PA system. It can be measured by direct methods and indirect methods.
Indirect methods (also called subject based) involve a panel of listeners who are to identify
spoken material broadcasted through the PA system or communication channel system under
test. Indirect methods are based on objective acoustical metrics which combined or alone have
areasonable degree of correlation with speech intelligibility.
The main factors having a significant effect on a PA system’s speech intelligibility include
reverberation time (RT), speech level to noise ratio, listener’s distance from loudspeakers,
system’s bandwidth and frequency response, geometry and volume of the space, directivity
and aim of loudspeakers.
An Acoustic diffuse field is mainly characterized by a uniform sound pressure level (SPL) and
aconsistent RT throughout the space beyond the source’s direct field. At any point in the
diffuse field sound propagates and is received from all directions. The RT decay curves are of
perfect exponential decay and of very similar character for all frequency bands.
The acoustical impulse response of a system to an impulse input signal provides at the output
all the information on how the system would behave to any other excitation signal. Hence
from acoustical impulse responses many acoustical parameters can be derived, such as RT
and speech transmission index (STI). However, other input signals than a pure impulse can
also be used to extract the impulse response of a system, for instance the e-sweep.
An e-sweep input signal is an exponential sweep of a sine wave through the desired frequency
range (audio spectrum in this study).
ICSV14 • 9-12 July 2007 • Cairns • Australia
Reverberation Time (RT) is defined as the time taken for the sound level to fall by 60 dB,
after the sound source is turned off. The RT is directly proportional to the volume of the room
and inversely proportional to the sound absorption present in that room. RT is also affected by
the room shape and contents (furniture or fittings).
Aversatile and convenient method to calculate the RT was developed by M. Schroeder [3] in
1965. This method uses the impulse response of the enclosure at the investigation point to
derive the RT by means of a reverse integration technique. This method allows RT to be
computed swiftly on a computer by means of dedicated acoustic measuring software like the
ones compared in the present experiment (WinMLS and Dirac).
The Speech Transmission Index (STI) has shown since its conception in 1971 by Houtgast and
Steeneken [4] to be possibly the most valuable and accurate metric for objective rating speech
intelligibility through a communication channel.
The STI is based on the concept of modulation transfer function m(F). When the speech
signal is transmitted through an enclosure, its amplitude modulation, rather than the carrier,
contains the important information. The room reverberation and noise cause a decrease in the
amplitude modulation. Here m(F) quantifies the degree of preservation of the original speech
amplitude modulations (from 0.63 to 12.5Hz) as a function of modulation frequency, as it is
transmitted throughout the room. As originally proposed, the m(F) only reflects the amplitude
characteristics of modulation transfer and the phase characteristics are disregarded.
M. Schroeder showed [5] how the m(F) may be calculated from the octave-band filtered
impulse response of the space.
=
0
2
0
)(
)(
)(
dttp
dtetp
Fm
Ftj
(3)
where p(t) is the room sound power density impulse response. Here the p(t) is nothing more
than the time interval derivate of the sound decay curve. This m(F) function is the complex
Fourier Transform of the squared impulse response divided by its total energy.
Each m(F) value is converted into an apparent signal to noise ratio, averaged, and normalized,
resulting in a single figure of merit called the speech transmission index STI, ranging from
zero to one, for each seven octave frequency band relevant of the speech envelope (from
125Hz - 8KHz).
The apparent signal to noise ratio, at frequency f is as follows,
()
=)(1
)(
log10/ ,Fm
Fm
NS fapp (dB) (4)
Modern measuring software can quickly and conveniently calculate STI from the impulse
response. Different STI score ranges were agreed to correlate to subjective descriptors of
perceived intelligibility. See table 1.
STI-PA is a simplified version of the full STI which allows easy and fast measurement of
speech intelligibility of PA systems. It can be conveniently measured by a hand held meter
provided the appropriate excitation signal is reproduced through the PA system. Due to its
high degree of correlation with the full STI [6] and convenience, STI-PA was incorporated in
ICSV14 • 9-12 July 2007 • Cairns • Australia
international standards (BS 60268-16:2003) and has experienced wide acceptance by the
industry concerned.
Table 1. Correspondence between STI or STI-PA scores and perceived speech intelligibility
Subjective
descriptor
Unintelligible Poor Fair Good Excellent
STI score 0 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.45 0.45 - 0.6 0.60 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.0
3. TEST METHODOLOGY
3.1 Test room
The ticket hall of Heathrow Terminal 4 Underground station (Figures 1-2) closely
approximates a rectangular shape of 4000m3of volume, having an open end (half-way to the
ceiling) at the platform end. Surfaces could be described as hard and reflective, since the
majority of the latter consisted of marble, glass and plastered wall. The P.A. loudspeaker
arrangement comprised of fourteen column loudspeakers around the perimeter of the room,
located at a height of 3m (angled 45Jdownwards) and spaced every 4m. Seven and twelve
ceiling loudspeakers were also in use in the entrance area and access to platform area
respectively. Background noise level (BGNL) at the time of measurements was Leq, 5min45dBA.
Figure 1. Heathrow Terminal 4 Underground station, Ticket hall plan
Four measurement sessions took place (during engineering hours 1am: to 4am); the overall
procedure divided in two main parts for the two source conditions (single, multi).
Measurements for the closed and open loop configurations were performed simultaneously.
ICSV14 • 9-12 July 2007 • Cairns • Australia
Figure 2. Heathrow Terminal 4 Underground station, Ticket hall
3.2 Closed-open loop measurement systems
For the closed loop configuration (Figure 3) a portable computer was used to run the
measurement software (WinMLS). A pair of omni directional source and receiver was
employed at the sound card’s output and input, respectively. Using a 10 second swept sine,
impulse response measurements of the room were taken for a representative number of
positions, as seen in figure 1.
Figure 3. Closed loop configuration
Typically, an open loop system (Figure 4) consists of a sound source and a portable receiver
with recording capabilities. For the purposes of this investigation, the receiving end of the
closed loop system was complemented by a B & K type 2250 sound level meter (SLM) to
separately represent an open loop measurement setup. Measurements were performed
simultaneously for the two systems (using the same source), with the SLM positioned next to
the receiver of the original setup. Post processing of the data in this case was performed at a
later stage in B & K’s Dirac software.
Figure 4. Open loop configuration
ICSV14 • 9-12 July 2007 • Cairns • Australia
3.3 Use of single omni directional source and station P.A system
For the two main parts of the measurement session the source configuration was changed, in
turn, for the omni directional source and the station’s P.A. system. Using the two setups, as
previously described, the source type was changed for the second (multi source) part of the
session to the station’s P.A. system. An NTI TalkBox, featuring human speech directivity,
was positioned 10 cm from the station supervisor’s office microphone and was used to
reproduce the swept sine generated from the portable computer (approximately at a ‘normal
talker’ level). The level of the signal transmitted to the ticket hall through the P.A. system was
then adjusted to a realistic level for normal station conditions, achieving a favorable S/N ratio
(>15dBA). Measurements were performed for the same receiver positions as in part one,
simultaneously for the closed and open loop configurations.
3.4 STIPA Measurements
An additional point of reference adding confidence to the main procedure was created by a
complementing session of STIPA measurements. Using the NTI TalkBox as a source (as
previously positioned), a STIPA test signal [7] was reproduced and transmitted through the
station’s P.A. system. Readings were taken with an NTI Acoustilyzer hand held meter for the
same receiver positions. Three measurements were performed per position and the average
stated in the results.
4. RESULTS
RT values shown below are the average of RT measured at 500Hz and 2KHz bands.
Table 2. Open Loop vs Closed Loop RT comparison, at the six measuring points.
Table 3. Open Loop vs Closed Loop STI comparison, at the six measuring points.
Single source
RT (sec) position 1 position 2 position 3 position 4 position 5 position 6
Open Loop 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8
Closed Loop 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8
Single source
STI position 1 position 2 position 3 position 4 position 5 position 6
Open Loop 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.33
Closed Loop 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.43
STI-PA 0.40 n/a 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.46
ICSV14 • 9-12 July 2007 • Cairns • Australia
Table 4. Open Loop vs Closed Loop RT comparison, at the six measuring points.
Table 5. Open Loop vs Closed Loop STI comparison, at the six measuring points.
5. RESULTS’ DISCUSSION
From the apparent physical characteristics of the Ticket Hall: non-extreme dimensions,
regular geometry and type of surface materials; it would be reasonable to expect acoustic
diffuse field characteristics. The highly consistent RT results obtained throughout the space
corroborated the diffuse field initial supposition.
Close loop measuring system gave highly consistent RT values irrespective of the receiver
position (single source Standard Deviation STD=0.05, multi source STD=0.04) or sound
source configuration, see tables 2 and 4.
Open loop system measured consistently lower RT values using the multi-source
configuration than when single source was utilised. However RT values from Open loop
system using the single source, closely agreed with Close loop RT values of either sound
source configuration (STD = 0.05- 0.2 at six receiver positions).
Looking at the Open loop-multi source RT data in more detail, it was found from all the e-
sweep samples post processed that the RT values at 500Hz were less consistent than values at
2000Hz. This detail leads to believe that Open loop measuring system is possibly more
susceptible to poor lower frequencies reproduction from the multi source system.
Speech intelligibility measured by the Close loop system gave very consistent STI values
irrespective of the receiver position (single source STD=0.01, multi source STD=0.02).
Typical STI standard deviation is 0.02 [7]. Although, Open loop system using multi source
gave slightly dispersed STI values (STD =0.03), individual position values did not differ
significantly from their Close loop counterparts in both source configurations.
Open loop-single source configuration yielded STI values at the six positions consistently 0.1
lower than values in any other 3 configuration combinations (see tables 3 and 5).This
consistent discrepancy may suggest that the Open loop was more sensitive to lower signal to
noise ratio (S/N) than Close loop system, due to the longer source-receiver distances than in
the multi-source situation.
Although receiver position 2 was placed on-axis with the nearest PA loudspeaker, its STI
score was not significantly higher than other off-axis receiver positions.This suggests that the
receiver was positioned outside the loudspeaker’s direct field and therefore its on-axis
position did not benefit its STI score, see table 5. Receiver position 6, although positioned off-
Multi source
RT (sec) position 1 position 2 position 3 Position 4 position 5 position 6
Open Loop 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3
Closed Loop 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Multi source
STI position 1 position 2 position 3 position 4 position 5 position 6
Open Loop 0.44 0.40 0.42 0.38 0.40 0.47
Closed Loop 0.45 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.40 0.47
STI-PA 0.40 n/a 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.46
ICSV14 • 9-12 July 2007 • Cairns • Australia
axis between two low ceiling loudspeakers, benefited from its close distance to the
loudspeakers which affected favourably the S/N ratio in the STI calculation. This is suggested
by its higher STI score when compared to the other 5 receiver positions, see table 5.
Most STI-PA scores correlated well with their corresponding positions’ STI scores in all
measurement configurations except in the single source & open loop. STI-PA standard
deviation was 0.02, which is the typical standard deviation of STI-PA [7].
6. CONCLUSIONS
The London underground Heathrow terminal 4 ticket hall space showed clear quasi diffuse
acoustic field characteristics. Most of the RT values measured in any of the two sources
configurations (multi source or single source) or by any two measuring systems (Dirac,
WinMLS) were in good agreement across the six measuring positions.
Measurements of STI using Close loop or Open loop measuring systems gave similar marks
for either single or multi source configuration. Results from this investigation showed that in a
space of similar characteristics as the ticket hall under investigation, objective speech
intelligibility (STI) may be measured utilising the installed multi source PA system by either
Open loop or Close loop measuring systems.
7. FURTHER WORK
It is intended that similar investigation to the work here presented, will follow in other spaces
in order to confirm that the findings summarised above also hold with various degrees of field
diffusion, different multi source types and loudspeaker characteristics. Similarly, the same
comparison between the two measuring systems presented in this work should be carried out
under different degrees of acoustic diffusion and sound sources configurations to ascertain the
conclusions above extracted. It is also proposed to investigate more in detail STI-PA
repeatability, accuracy and correlation with full STI in the different conditions mentioned
above.
REFERENCES
[1] “Ergonomics - Assessment of speech communication”, British Standards, BS EN ISO 9921: 2003
[2] “Code of practice for the design, planning, installation, testing and maintenance of sound systems”,
British Standards, BS 6259:1997
[3] M.R. Schroeder, “New method of measuring reverberation time”. Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America vol 37, 409-412 (1965).
[4] T.Houtgast and H.J.M. Steeneken, “Evaluation of speech transmission channels by using artificial
signals” Acustica vol 25,355-367 (1971).
[5] M.R. Schroeder, “Modulation transfer functions: Definitions and measurements”, Acustica,vol
49,179-182 (1981).
[6] Ole-Herman Bjor, “STIPA, The Golden mean between full STI and RASTI”, Proceedings of the
Institute of Acoustics Vol.25, Pt 7. (2003)
[7] “Sound System Equipment - Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech
Transmission Index”, British Standards, BS ISO 60268-16 (2003)
