During the acoustical design of, e.g., auditoria or open-plan offices, it is important to know how speech can be perceived in various parts of the room. Different objective methods have been developed to measure and predict speech intelligibility, and these have been extensively used in various spaces. In this study, two such methods were compared, the speech transmission index (STI) and the speech intelligibility index (SII). Also the simplification of the STI, the room acoustics speech transmission index (RASTI), was considered. These quantities are all based on determining an apparent speech-to-noise ratio on selected frequency bands and summing them using a specific weighting. For comparison, some data were needed on the possible differences of these methods resulting from the calculation scheme and also measuring equipment. Their prediction accuracy was also of interest. Measurements were made in a laboratory having adjustable noise level and absorption, and in a real auditorium. It was found that the measurement equipment, especially the selection of the loudspeaker, can greatly affect the accuracy of the results. The prediction accuracy of the RASTI was found acceptable, if the input values for the prediction are accurately known, even though the studied space was not ideally diffuse.

1.
V.
Hongisto
,
J.
Keränen
, and
P.
Larm
, “
Simple model for the acoustical design of open-plan offices
,”
Acust. Acta Acust.
90
,
481
495
(
2003
).
2.
V.
Hongisto
, “
A model predicting the effect of unwanted speech of varying intelligibility on work performance
,”
Indoor Air
(in press).
3.
ANSI S3.5-1997
, “
Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index
” (
American National Standards Institute
,
New York
,
1997
).
4.
IEC 60268-16
3rd ed., ”
Sound system equipment. Part 16: Objective rating of speech intelligibility by speech transmission index
” (
International Electrotechnical Commission
,
Geneva, Switzerland
,
2003
).
5.
K. D.
Kryter
, “
Methods for the Calculation and Use of the Articulation Index
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
34
,
1689
1697
(
1962
).
6.
ANSI S3.5-1969
, “
Methods for the calculation of the articulation index
” (
American National Standards Institute
,
New York
,
1969
).
7.
N. R.
French
and
J. C.
Steinberg
, “
Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
19
,
90
119
(
1947
).
8.
H. J.M.
Steeneken
and
T.
Houtgast
, “
A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
67
,
318
326
(
1980
).
9.
T.
Houtgast
and
H. J.M.
Steeneken
, “
A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
77
,
1069
1077
(
1985
).
10.
H. J.M.
Steeneken
and
T.
Houtgast
, “
Mutual dependence of the octave-band weights in predicting speech intelligibility
,”
Speech Commun.
28
,
109
123
(
1999
).
11.
Past, present and future of the Speech Transmission Index
,”
Proceedings of the International Symposium on STI
,
TNO Human Factors
,
Soesterberg, The Netherlands
(
2002
).
12.
T.
Houtgast
and
H. J.M.
Steeneken
, “
A multi-language evaluation of the RASTI-method for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria
,”
Acustica
54
,
185
199
(
1984
).
13.
E.
Sala
and
V.
Viljanen
, “
Improvement of acoustic conditions for speech communication in classrooms
,”
Appl. Acoust.
45
,
81
91
(
1995
).
14.
M.
Hodgson
, “
Case-study evaluations of the acoustical designs of renovated university classrooms
,”
Appl. Acoust.
65
,
69
89
(
2004
).
15.
A. P.O.
Carvalho
, “
Relations between rapid speech transmission index (RASTI) and other acoustical measures in churches
,”
Appl. Acoust.
58
,
33
49
(
1999
).
16.
V.
Desarnaulds
, “
De l’acoustique des églises en Suisse. Une approche pluridisciplinaire
,”
École Polytechnique de Lausanne
,
Switzerland
(
2002
).
17.
A.
Carvalho
and
C.
Monteiro
, “
Acoustics of courtrooms in Portugal
,”
Proceedings of the Noise-Con 2003
,
Cleveland, OH
(
2003
).
18.
A.
Carvalho
and
A.
Carvalho
, “
Acoustic characterization of historic cloisters in Portugal
,”
Proceedings of the Noise-Con 2004
,
Baltimore, MD
(
2004
).
19.
J.
Kang
, “
Modelling of train noise in underground stations
,”
J. Sound Vib.
195
(
2
),
241
255
(
1996
)
20.
S. J.
van Wijngaarden
and
J. A.
Verhave
, “
Measurement and prediction of speech intelligibility in traffic tunnels using the STI
,” in
Past, Present and Future of the Speech Transmission Index, Proceedings of the International Symposium on STI, TNO Human Factors
,
Soesterberg, The Netherlands
(
2002
), pp.
111
116
.
21.
P.
Larm
,
J.
Keränen
,
R.
Helenius
,
J.
Hakala
, and
V.
Hongisto
, “
Acoustics in open-plan offices–A laboratory study
,”
Proceedings of the Baltic-Nordic Acoustic Meeting, 8–10 June
,
Mariehamn, Finland
CD-ROM (
2004
).
22.
A.
Tisseyre
,
A.
Moulinier
, and
Y.
Rouard
, “
Intelligibility in various rooms: Comparing its assesment by (RA)STI measurement with a direct measurement procedure
,”
Appl. Acoust.
53
(
1
),
179
191
(
1998
).
23.
T.
Houtgast
,
H. J.M.
Steeneken
, and
R.
Plomp
, “
Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function. I. General room acoustics
,”
Acustica
46
,
60
72
(
1980
).
24.
H.
Kuttruff
,
Room Acoustics
, 3rd ed. (
Elsevier Science
,
New York
,
1991
).
25.
Brüel
and
Kjær
, “
Instruction Manual, Speech transmission meter type 3361
” (
1986
), p.
68
.
You do not currently have access to this content.