When listening to languages learned at a later age, speech intelligibility is generally lower than when listening to one’s native language. The main purpose of this study is to quantify speech intelligibility in noise for specific populations of non-native listeners, only broadly addressing the underlying perceptual and linguistic processing. An easy method is sought to extend these quantitative findings to other listener populations. Dutch subjects listening to Germans and English speech, ranging from reasonable to excellent proficiency in these languages, were found to require a 1–7 dB better speech-to-noise ratio to obtain 50% sentence intelligibility than native listeners. Also, the psychometric function for sentence recognition in noise was found to be shallower for non-native than for native listeners (worst-case slope around the 50% point of 7.5%/dB, compared to 12.6%/dB for native listeners). Differences between native and non-native speech intelligibility are largely predicted by linguistic entropy estimates as derived from a letter guessing task. Less effective use of context effects (especially semantic redundancy) explains the reduced speech intelligibility for non-native listeners. While measuring speech intelligibility for many different populations of listeners (languages, linguistic experience) may be prohibitively time consuming, obtaining predictions of non-native intelligibility from linguistic entropy may help to extend the results of this study to other listener populations.

1.
Benoît
,
C.
,
Grice
,
M.
, and
Hazan
,
V.
(
1996
). “
The SUS test: A method for the assessment of text-to-speech synthesis intelligibility using Semantically Unpredictable Sentences
,”
Speech Commun.
18
,
381
392
.
2.
Bergman, M. (1980). Aging and the Perception of Speech (University Park, Baltimore, MD).
3.
Boothroyd
,
A.
, and
Nittrouer
,
S.
(
1988
). “
Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
84
,
101
104
.
4.
Bradlow
,
A. R.
, and
Pisoni
,
D. B.
(
1999
). “
Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: talker-, listener-, and item-related factors
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
106
,
2074
2085
.
5.
Bronkhorst
,
A. W.
,
Bosman
,
A. J.
, and
Smoorenburg
,
G. F.
(
1993
). “
A model for context effects in speech recognition
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
93
,
499
509
.
6.
Buus, S., Florentine, M., Scharf, B., and Canevet, G. (1986). “Native, French listeners’ perception of American-English in noise,” in Proc. Internoise 86, pp. 895–898.
7.
Flege, J. E. (1992). “The intelligibility of English vowels spoken by British and Dutch talkers,” in Intelligibility in Speech Disorders, edited by R. D. Kent (Benjamins, Amsterdam).
8.
Flege, J. E. (1995). “Second-language speech learning: theory, findings, and problems,” in Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience, edited by W. Strange (York, Baltimore, MD).
9.
Flege
,
J. E.
,
Bohn
,
O.-S.
, and
Jang
,
S.
(
1997
). “
Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels
,”
J. Phonetics
25
,
437
470
.
10.
Florentine
,
M.
,
Buus
,
S.
,
Scharf
,
B.
, and
Cavenet
,
G.
(
1984
). “
Speech reception thresholds in noise for native and non-native listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
Suppl. 1
74
,
S84
.
11.
Florentine, M. (1985). “Non-native listeners’ perception of American-English in noise,” in Proc. of Internoise 85, pp. 1021–1024.
12.
Gat
,
I. N.
, and
Keith
,
R. W.
(
1978
). “
An effect of linguistic experience; auditory word discrimination by native and non-native speakers of English
,”
Audiology
17
,
339
345
.
13.
Koster, C. J. (1987). “Word Recognition in Foreign and Native Language; Effects of Context and Assimilation,” doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht (Foris, Doredrecht, The Netherlands).
14.
Lane
,
H.
(
1963
). “
Foreign accent and speech distortion
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
35
,
451
453
.
15.
Mayo
,
L. H.
,
Florentine
,
M.
, and
Buus
,
S.
(
1997
). “
Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise
,”
J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res.
40
,
686
693
.
16.
Meador
,
D.
,
Flege
,
J. E.
,
Mackay
,
I. R. A.
(
2000
). “
Factors affecting the recognition of words in a second language
,”
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
3
,
55
67
.
17.
Müsch
,
H.
, and
Buus
,
S.
(
2001
). “
Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. I. Model structure
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
,
2896
2909
.
18.
Nábělek
,
A. K.
, and
Donahue
,
A. M.
(
1984
). “
Perception of consonants in reverberation by native and non-native listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
75
,
632
634
.
19.
Plomp
,
R.
, and
Mimpen
,
A. M.
(
1979
). “
Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences
,”
Audiology
18
,
43
52
.
20.
Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Univ. of Illinois, Urbana).
21.
Steeneken
,
H. J. M.
, and
Houtgast
,
T.
(
1999
). “
Mutual dependence of the octave-band weights in predicting speech intelligibility
,”
Speech Commun.
28
,
109
123
.
22.
Strange, W. (1995). “Cross-language studies of speech perception: A historical review,” in Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience, edited by W. Strange (York, Baltimore, MD).
23.
Van Rooij, J. C. G. M. (1991). “Aging and the perception of speech: auditive and cognitive aspects,” doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam.
24.
van Wijngaarden
,
S. J.
(
2001a
). “
The intelligibility of non-native Dutch speech
,”
Speech Commun.
35
,
103
113
.
25.
van Wijngaarden, S. J., Steeneken, H. J. M., and Houtgast, T. (2001). “Methods and models for quantitative assessment of speech intelligibility in cross-language communication,” in Proceedings of RTO Workshop on Multi-Lingual Speech and Language Processing, Aalborg.
26.
Versfeld
,
N. J.
,
Daalder
,
J.
,
Festen
,
J. M.
, and
Houtgast
,
T.
(
2000
). “
Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
107
,
1671
1684
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.