Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Lombard effect

The Lombard effect, also known as the Lombard reflex, is an involuntary acoustic adaptation in which speakers increase their vocal effort—primarily through elevated sound pressure levels (SPL), fundamental frequency (F0), and speech duration—when communicating amid background noise, thereby enhancing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and intelligibility for listeners.^[1] First documented by French otolaryngologist Étienne Lombard in 1911 while observing patients who unconsciously raised their voices in noisy clinical settings, the effect is triggered by auditory feedback disruptions and typically manifests as a 0.3–0.6 dB increase in vocal intensity per 1 dB rise in ambient noise above approximately 50 dB(A).^[2]^[1] In human speech, the Lombard effect induces specific suprasegmental modifications, including a flatter spectral tilt (more high-frequency energy), heightened F0 (often by 10–20 Hz), prolonged vowel durations, and shifts in formant frequencies (e.g., elevated F1 for high vowels like /i/ and /u/), all of which contribute to clearer articulation without deliberate intent.^[2] These changes are robust across diverse populations, including cochlear implant users who exhibit similar SPL and F0 elevations in naturalistic noisy environments like cafeterias (∼65 dB), resulting in improved SNR from 3 dB to 11 dB.^[3] The effect's magnitude correlates with noise level and spectral overlap with the speaker's voice, diminishing in non-overlapping noise, and it persists even in choral singing or group conversations where collective vocal adjustments amplify the response.^[1] Beyond humans, the Lombard effect is widespread across vertebrates, observed in over 30 species including fish, frogs, birds, bats, whales, cats, and nonhuman primates, where it similarly boosts call amplitude and frequency to maintain communication efficacy against masking noise.^[4] Neural underpinnings involve rapid subcortical circuits, such as the periaqueductal gray (PAG) and lateral reticular formation in the brainstem, enabling latencies as short as 30 ms, with cortical modulation (e.g., via prefrontal areas) in mammals for finer context-dependent control.^[4] Ecologically, it underscores adaptive vocal plasticity, with implications for speech therapy, hearing aid design, and noise mitigation in social settings like restaurants, where noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) can reduce intelligibility and willingness to engage by up to 50%.^[1]

Introduction and History

Definition

The Lombard effect refers to the involuntary adjustment in speech production that occurs when individuals speak in the presence of environmental noise, characterized by an automatic increase in vocal intensity, fundamental frequency, and overall speech clarity to preserve intelligibility for listeners. This reflexive response enhances the signal-to-noise ratio without conscious effort, allowing communication to remain effective amid competing sounds.^[2]^[4] The phenomenon is named after Étienne Lombard, a French otolaryngologist who first documented it in 1911 through experiments involving auditory feedback, observing that participants raised their voice levels in response to masking noise presented via a hearing tube.^[5]^[6] In contrast to voluntary shouting, which requires deliberate muscular exertion and can lead to vocal strain, the Lombard effect operates as an innate, subcortically driven mechanism that does not demand cognitive intent or training. Core acoustic changes include an elevation in sound pressure level (SPL) ranging from 2 to 10 dB depending on noise intensity, a corresponding rise in fundamental frequency (F0) of approximately 5 to 20 Hz, and the elongation of vowels alongside other durational adjustments to boost perceptual salience.^[1]^[7]^[4]

Historical Discovery

The Lombard effect was first systematically observed and documented by French otolaryngologist Étienne Lombard in the early 20th century. While working at Hôpital Lariboisière in Paris, Lombard conducted experiments using a noise apparatus invented by Robert Bárány to deliver intense noise to one ear of patients during conversation. The subjects responded by involuntarily raising the amplitude of their speech to compensate for the masking noise, often without realizing the change in their own vocal output; this demonstrated the role of disrupted auditory feedback in driving vocal adjustments. Lombard initially reported these findings in 1909 to the French Academy of Sciences and in 1910 to the Academy of Medicine, before publishing a detailed account in 1911. Subsequent early experiments confirmed Lombard's observations, establishing the phenomenon as a reliable response to noise interference. Researchers replicated the effect using similar masking techniques, showing that speakers consistently increase vocal intensity when their self-audition is compromised by background sound, regardless of whether the noise is presented monaurally or binaurally. These confirmations highlighted the involuntary nature of the response, linking it directly to the need to maintain speech intelligibility through enhanced auditory monitoring. By the 1930s, related work on auditory perception, such as studies of equal-loudness contours, provided foundational insights into how noise alters perceived vocal effort, further validating the mechanisms underlying Lombard's discovery. The terminology for the phenomenon evolved alongside growing research interest. Initially termed the "Lombard sign" shortly after Lombard's initial reports, it was recharacterized as the "Lombard reflex" in mid-20th-century literature to underscore its reflexive, automatic quality. By the 1960s, the term "Lombard effect" became standardized in psychoacoustic studies, reflecting its broader application beyond mere reflex to encompass adaptive vocal modifications in noisy environments.

Features of Lombard Speech

Acoustic Modifications

The primary acoustic modification in Lombard speech is an increase in vocal intensity, where the sound pressure level (SPL) rises by approximately 0.4 to 0.6 dB for each decibel of added background noise, often resulting in a total gain of 10 to 15 dB when noise levels exceed baseline speech by 20 to 30 dB.^[1]^[8]^[9] This adjustment can be approximated by the relation ΔSPL ≈ k × (N - T), where k is a constant typically ranging from 0.3 to 0.5, N represents the noise level in dB SPL, and T is the threshold noise level (typically around 50 dB SPL).^[1]^[10] Spectral characteristics also shift, with enhanced energy in higher frequencies above 2 kHz, particularly around 3 kHz, to improve consonant clarity and reduce masking by noise.^[11] This boost in high-frequency content, often described as a flattening of the spectral tilt, contrasts with the steeper roll-off in quiet speech, thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio in speech-relevant bands.^[12] Durational changes contribute further, including a slower overall speaking rate of about 10% and longer pauses between words or phrases to allow for better temporal separation from noise.^[13] Vowels are typically prolonged by 10 to 20%, while consonants may shorten slightly, enhancing the vowel-to-consonant duration ratio.^[14]^[15] These modifications exhibit frequency-specificity, with greater amplitude adjustments occurring in the 500 to 4000 Hz range—critical for speech intelligibility—compared to other bands, as demonstrated in experiments using bandpass and notched noise.^[16] Lombard speech also features an elevation in fundamental frequency (F0) by about 10–20 Hz, which aids in maintaining prosodic contrast and intelligibility in noise.^[3]

Articulatory and Perceptual Adjustments

When producing speech in noisy environments, speakers undergo articulatory shifts that promote hyperarticulation to enhance clarity. These include increased lip rounding and protrusion, wider jaw opening, and greater subglottal pressure to support louder and more precise vocalization.^[17]^[18]^[19] Electromyography recordings reveal heightened activity in laryngeal muscles, reflecting the coordinated respiratory and phonatory adjustments that amplify vocal effort.^[20] These articulatory modifications yield perceptual outcomes that bolster speech intelligibility for listeners amid background noise. Lombard speech typically improves the effective signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) through elevated overall intensity and spectral emphasis, facilitating better word recognition in tests involving masked stimuli. Cross-linguistic variations highlight these effects, with tonal languages like Mandarin exhibiting greater vowel exaggeration; a 2025 study demonstrated a notable boost in high-frequency energy, aiding tone and vowel distinction in noise.^[21] For listeners, such adjustments provide tangible benefits by enhancing formant dispersion, which widens the acoustic separation of vowels and reduces perceptual confusion in reverberant or crowded settings like restaurants.^[22] This hyperarticulated formant structure minimizes overlap between vowel categories, thereby supporting more accurate decoding of phonetic contrasts despite environmental interference.^[23]

Underlying Mechanisms

Auditory Feedback Processes

The auditory feedback processes underlying the Lombard effect operate through sensory-motor loops that enable real-time detection of environmental noise and subsequent vocal adjustments. Central to this is the private loop, which involves internal monitoring of one's own voice via bone and air conduction pathways, providing sidetone for self-regulation of vocal intensity and quality. When ambient noise masks this self-hearing, the speaker perceives a reduction in their own vocal output, triggering compensatory increases in amplitude to restore the expected auditory feedback level.^[24] Disruption of the private loop, such as through altered sidetone or hearing protection that attenuates self-perception, substantially reduces the magnitude of the Lombard effect by impairing this autoregulatory mechanism.^[25]^[26] Complementing the private loop is the public loop, which monitors external auditory cues including ambient noise levels and interlocutor speech to maintain communicative intelligibility. This loop integrates information about the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the environment, prompting vocal elevations when noise interferes with transmission to others. Efference copies—internal predictions of sensory consequences from motor commands—facilitate the fusion of private and public feedback, allowing for precise, real-time calibration of vocal output without relying solely on delayed sensory input.^[24]^[26] Experimental evidence from delayed auditory feedback (DAF) paradigms confirms the dependence on immediate auditory input; delays of 100–200 ms disrupt normal speech motor control and abolish or markedly attenuate Lombard adjustments, as speakers cannot accurately synchronize their vocal responses to perceived noise perturbations.^[27]^[28] These findings underscore the role of rapid feedback integration in the effect. The overall integration follows an audiovocal gain control model, where noise-induced masking of self-hearing leads to a proportional rise in vocal amplitude, typically 0.3–0.6 dB per 1 dB increase in noise above 50 dB SPL, to reinstate adequate SNR for both self-monitoring and external communication.^[29]^[1] This mechanism ensures adaptive vocal behavior while minimizing overcompensation through frequency-specific adjustments when noise overlaps with vocal formants.^[29]

Neurological Basis

The neurological basis of the Lombard effect involves a network of brain regions that integrate auditory input with vocal motor control to enable reflexive adjustments in speech production amid noise. The auditory cortex, particularly the superior temporal gyrus (STG), plays a central role in detecting background noise and processing self-generated vocal feedback, facilitating the initial sensory evaluation required for amplitude modulation.^[30] This region integrates with motor areas, such as the inferior frontal gyrus (including Broca's area) and supplementary motor area, which coordinate the execution of vocal adjustments, as well as subcortical structures like the basal ganglia that support the timing and sequencing of these motor responses.^[26] Functional neuroimaging evidence underscores this integration, revealing heightened activation in the STG and adjacent primary auditory areas during speech in noisy environments compared to quiet conditions.^[30] A key mechanism underlying this process is the efference copy, a predictive signal generated by motor planning regions that anticipates the sensory consequences of self-produced sounds, allowing the brain to distinguish internal vocal output from external noise. When auditory feedback deviates from this prediction—such as due to masking noise—an error signal propagates through the network, prompting compensatory increases in vocal intensity and fundamental frequency to restore audibility. This forward model is supported by event-related potential (ERP) studies showing enhanced N1-P2 complex amplitudes in temporal and frontal regions during the Lombard response, reflecting rapid audiovocal mismatch detection. Additionally, fMRI data indicate increased engagement of the cerebellum alongside the STG and basal ganglia (e.g., pallidum) in modulating these adjustments, with cerebellar activity linked to fine-tuning articulatory precision under noisy conditions.^[30] Disruptions to this neural circuitry can weaken the Lombard effect, as observed in neurological disorders affecting feedback integration. In Parkinson's disease, basal ganglia dysfunction impairs the sustained motor control needed for full vocal amplification, resulting in attenuated intensity increases despite initial responses to noise. Similarly, individuals with aphasia exhibit reduced loudness adaptations in noise, attributable to lesions in perisylvian language networks that hinder auditory-motor coupling and error signal processing. These impairments highlight the reliance of the Lombard effect on intact subcortical-cortical pathways for effective self-monitoring and vocal adaptation.

Developmental Aspects

The Lombard effect manifests early in human development, with evidence of its presence in infancy through adjustments in crying intensity. Studies have shown that 1-month-old infants increase the loudness of their cries when exposed to concurrent crying from other infants, which acts as background noise, indicating an innate audio-vocal response mechanism.^[4] This primitive form of vocal adjustment to noise suggests the effect's roots in basic auditory feedback processes, though explicit testing in speech production begins later. By 3–4 years of age, children exhibit the full Lombard effect during verbal tasks, increasing vocal intensity and other acoustic parameters in noisy conditions at levels comparable to adults.^[4] The transition to mature speech forms occurs around 2–3 years, coinciding with the onset of multi-word utterances, where noise-induced vocal modifications become more pronounced and integrated with emerging language skills.^[31] During childhood, the Lombard effect progresses and stabilizes as language exposure accumulates, with consistent gains in vocal intensity observed from preschool years onward. Studies of 5-year-old children show responses to noise that approximate adult patterns in magnitude, though slightly smaller but not significantly different, reflecting early maturation of auditory-vocal integration.^[32] In bilingual speakers, Lombard responses tend to be larger in the second language, correlated with reduced fluency and increased reliance on auditory feedback for intensity adjustments.^[33] This progression underscores the role of linguistic experience in refining the effect, with stabilization tied to neural and perceptual development during school-age years. In aging populations, the Lombard effect diminishes, showing reduced vocal intensity gains of approximately 5% compared to younger adults (slopes of 0.51 dB/dBA versus 0.54 dB/dBA), largely attributable to age-related hearing loss that impairs self-monitoring of speech.^[1] Critical periods in early life are pivotal for the proper development of the Lombard effect, as auditory deprivation can impair its emergence. Short-term deprivation studies in adults with cochlear implants demonstrate preserved Lombard adjustments, with increases in vocal intensity and fundamental frequency similar to those in normal-hearing individuals.^[3]

Applications in Human Contexts

Choral and Group Singing

In choral and group singing, the Lombard effect manifests as an involuntary increase in vocal intensity among singers to compensate for the masking noise produced by the ensemble itself, ensuring individual contributions remain audible within the collective sound. This synchronized intensity boost helps maintain projection in noisy group environments, such as when multiple voices overlap during performances. However, trained choral singers exhibit a suppressed response compared to solo contexts, with professional singers demonstrating only a 0.13 dB increase in sound pressure level (SPL) per 1 dB rise in background noise, versus 0.21 dB/dB for non-professionals.^[34] This reduced gain, approximately 38% less than in less trained individuals, reflects adaptations to group acoustics where excessive volume can disrupt blend. Conductor cues play a key role in further modulating this effect, as verbal instructions combined with visual gestures enable singers to consciously regulate and lower their intensity, mitigating over-singing even after the cues cease. Studies on choral ensembles show that such interventions significantly reduce the Lombard-induced intensity rise (p < 0.05), allowing for more controlled dynamics in performance.^[35] In reverberant halls, singers maintain a self-to-other ratio (SOR) of around 3-4 dB on average, perceiving their own voice as louder relative to peers by this amount to achieve balance without excessive amplification.^[36] Social dynamics in group settings also inhibit the full Lombard response through mutual monitoring among singers, leading to reduced individual intensity adjustments compared to isolated vocalization, as ensemble cohesion prioritizes unified output over personal audibility. This inhibition arises from the shared auditory feedback loop, where performers attune to the group's overall level rather than reacting solely to noise. Singers may also make harmonic adjustments to support blend and enhance clarity amid the ensemble's acoustic interference. Practical examples illustrate amplified Lombard effects in demanding scenarios, such as opera singers projecting over orchestral accompaniment, where vocal SPL routinely exceeds 100 dBA to overcome the ensemble's noise.^[37] This adaptation ensures audibility in large venues, though it requires precise control to avoid vocal strain.

Clinical and Technological Uses

In clinical applications, the Lombard effect is utilized in rehabilitation training for cochlear implant (CI) users to facilitate adaptation to noisy environments post-surgery. A 2017 naturalistic study of adult CI users found that exposure to background noise elicited the Lombard effect, resulting in significant increases in vowel sound pressure level (SPL) and fundamental frequency (F0), which improved the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by +7.9 dB in a gameroom setting, thereby enhancing overall speech intelligibility.^[3] Additionally, artificial speech perturbation algorithms modeled after Lombard modifications—incorporating temporal amplification of high-intelligibility segments, spectral filtering, and time stretching—have demonstrated intelligibility gains of up to 16.8% at 10 dB SNR and 12.8% at 15 dB SNR for CI listeners in crowd noise, outperforming natural Lombard speech in some conditions.^[38] For voice disorders such as adductor spasmodic dysphonia (AdSD), therapeutic interventions leverage controlled background noise to induce the Lombard effect, aiming to normalize vocal intensity and reduce spasmodic interruptions. A 2024 study of AdSD patients showed that speaking in noisy conditions under the Lombard effect led to significant improvements in subjective perceived effort (p < 0.001) and auditory-perceptual severity of dysphonia (p < 0.01), with acoustic changes including increased SPL and F0, suggesting potential for noise-based therapy to modulate abnormal auditory feedback processing.^[39] Technologically, hearing aids and CI devices incorporate algorithms that mimic Lombard adaptations by boosting high-frequency energy and adjusting spectral tilt in response to ambient noise, which helps maintain speech clarity and reduces cognitive listening effort for users with hearing impairment. These strategies, often implemented via real-time perturbation of incoming signals, align with natural vocal adjustments to improve speech-in-noise performance, as evidenced by enhanced intelligibility in low-SNR scenarios for auditory prosthesis users.^[38] In speech recognition systems, AI models detect Lombard signatures—such as elevated intensity, pitch shifts, and formant expansions—using machine learning to filter and compensate for noisy inputs, thereby boosting robustness. For instance, a 2023 deep learning framework employing convolutional neural networks on mel-spectrogram representations achieved 98.3% accuracy in classifying Lombard speech across languages, enabling applications like adaptive public address systems and automatic speech recognition in adverse acoustics.^[40]

Lombard Effect in Animals

Avian Vocalizations

The Lombard effect manifests prominently in avian vocalizations, particularly among songbirds, where individuals increase the amplitude of their songs in response to urban noise levels. This adjustment helps maintain signal-to-noise ratios essential for effective communication.^[2] In species such as great tits, noise exposure induces frequency shifts, elevating the minimum frequency of songs to avoid masking by low-frequency anthropogenic sounds.^[41] Evolutionarily, the Lombard effect plays a key role in songbirds by enhancing mate attraction and territory defense through clearer signal transmission in noisy environments. Over the past century of psychoacoustic research, studies have documented this adaptive vocal plasticity as a conserved trait across birds, underscoring its long-term significance in avian communication.^[42] Notable species variations exist, with the effect being stronger in oscines—song-learning passerines—compared to suboscines, which exhibit less pronounced amplitude adjustments. Playback experiments, involving controlled noise presentations, confirm the dependence on auditory feedback, as birds rapidly modulate vocal output only when able to hear the noise.^[2]^[43] In urban settings, chronic noise exposure leads to permanent adaptations, where city-dwelling birds maintain a baseline song amplitude increase of approximately 2-3 dB even in quieter conditions, reflecting long-term physiological or behavioral tuning to persistent acoustic pollution.^[44]

Mammalian Communication

In non-human primates, the Lombard effect facilitates effective social and alarm communication amid group-generated or environmental noise. Common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) increase call intensity by 4–7 dB during noisy group interactions, compensating for masking to preserve contact calls essential for family cohesion and coordination.^[45] Echolocating mammals demonstrate the Lombard effect in foraging and navigation contexts, where acoustic clutter from echoes or anthropogenic noise challenges signal detection. Bats amplify echolocation pulses by 0.1–0.2 dB per dB increase in masking noise, with responses occurring within 20 ms even in cluttered environments like dense vegetation or urban settings.^[46] Similarly, bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exhibit amplitude compensation of 0.1–0.3 dB per dB rise in background noise for echolocation clicks, maintaining foraging efficiency and social signaling in reverberant or vessel-trafficked waters.^[47] Humpback whales also show the Lombard effect, increasing call intensity in response to vessel noise or wind, as documented in studies up to 2013.^[48] The Lombard effect has been observed in cats, where they increase call amplitude in noisy environments.^[49] Studies underscore neural parallels in audiovocal integration across bats, dolphins, and humans, involving subcortical circuits that rapidly detect signal-to-noise degradation and trigger reflexive adjustments.^[50] Cross-species comparisons indicate variations in feedback mechanisms underlying the Lombard effect, bolstering collective vigilance and group unity in dynamic acoustic environments.^[50]

References

[1]
Lombard effect, intelligibility, ambient noise, and willingness to ...
Apr 21, 2022 · The presence of high level background noise in an environment, where communication is key, often triggers the Lombard Effect. The Lombard Effect ...
[2]
The Lombard effect observed in speech produced by cochlear ... - NIH
The Lombard effect is an involuntary response speakers experience in the presence of noise during voice communication. This phenomenon is known to cause changes ...
[3]
[PDF] The Lombard Effect: From Acoustics to Neural Mechanisms
The Lombard effect, by strict definition, refers to a rise in call amplitude in response to increasing ambient noise level [16–18]. It is named after Étienne ...Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
[4]
[PDF] The Lombard Effect in Spontaneous Dialog Speech - ISCA Archive
[1] Lombard É (1911) Le signe de l'élévation de la voix. In: Ann. Mal. Oreil. Larynx, Vol 37, pp. 101-119. [2] Lane H, Tranel B (1971): The Lombard sign and ...
[5]
The impact of the Lombard effect on audio and visual speech ...
The paper is organised as three speech-in-noise recognition studies. The first examines the case in which a system is presented with Lombard speech having been ...
[6]
[PDF] The contribution of changes in F0 and spectral tilt to increased ...
Spe- cifically, Lombard speech demonstrates an overall increase in duration (although vowels and consonants are differen- tially affected), and increase in F0 ...
[7]
Acoustic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Lombard Effect | bioRxiv
Oct 3, 2022 · The noise profile used for triggering the Lombard effect was 80 dB SPL, with equal energy between 125 Hz and 1000 Hz (octave band) followed by ...
[8]
Effect of Noise on Vocal Loudness and Pitch in Natural Environments
This automatic increase in vocal loudness is known as Lombard effect. In addition to an increase in vocal intensity, fundamental frequency is also found to ...
[9]
Evaluation of the starting point of the Lombard Effect - PMC - NIH
Jan 1, 2018 · Speakers increase their vocal effort when their communication is disturbed by noise. This adaptation is termed the Lombard effect.
[10]
Speaking in noise: How does the Lombard effect improve acoustic ...
Lombard speech has been shown to be more intelligible than conversational speech produced in quiet condition (Dreher and O'Neill, 1957, Lu and Cooke, 2008, ...
[11]
[PDF] Analysis and Compensation of Lombard Speech Across Noise Type ...
Further, spectral tilt under the Lombard Effect decreases, indicating an increase in the high-frequency content under the Lombard Effect. The above analyses ...
[12]
[PDF] Lombard speech: Auditory (A), Visual (V) and AV effects
Compared with speech in quiet, speech in noise is typically produced with increased volume, decreased speaking rate, and changes in articulation and pitch.
[13]
Speaking in noise: How does the Lombard effect improve acoustic ...
Aug 6, 2025 · It is known that vowels increase their duration in Lombard speech, while consonants, in contrast, are shortened [2] . The increase in vowels' ...
[14]
[PDF] Durational Characteristics of Korean Lombard Speech - ISCA Archive
The duration of segments of consonants of Lombard speech decreases compared to that of normal speech, while that of vowels increases as in Table 6. The mean ...Missing: speaking | Show results with:speaking
[15]
Evidence that the Lombard effect is frequency-specific in humans
The Lombard effect is an increase in the suprasegmental speech parameters of vocal intensity, duration, and fundamental frequency in the presence of noise.Methods · Pilot Experiment · DiscussionMissing: sources | Show results with:sources
[16]
Speakers exhibit a multimodal Lombard effect in noise - Nature
Aug 18, 2021 · This modulatory increase in vocal effort includes an increase in speech intensity (i.e., loudness), and a shift in the fundamental frequency (F0 ...Missing: Hz | Show results with:Hz
[17]
An active communicative strategy to enhance visible speech cues?
Aug 29, 2018 · These results support the idea that the Lombard effect is at least partly a listener-oriented adaptation. ... increased lip radiation, directly ...
[18]
Increased Vocal Intensity due to the Lombard Effect in Speakers with ...
They were able to support their increased vocal intensity and subglottal pressure with combined strategies from both the laryngeal and respiratory mechanisms.Missing: rounding jaw
[19]
Increased vocal intensity due to the Lombard effect in speakers with ...
Using the Lombard effect to increase vocal intensity is effective. •. Speakers use diverse combinations of respiratory and laryngeal strategies to increase ...
[20]
[PDF] Investigating the Lombard Effect Influence on End-to-End Audio ...
As ex- pected the improvement is higher when visual Lombard speech is used for training. On the other hand, Heracleous et al. [16] reported a performance drop ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[21]
[PDF] Advanced hearing protection and communication - CDC Stacks
Word recognition scores were obtained for frontal speech incidence in two mili- ... pass-through gain, all subject groups showed an improvement of about 20-30 % ...
[22]
Understanding the Lombard Effect for Mandarin: Relation Between ...
The average F0 and F1 were significantly (all P < .05) increased from plain speech to the Lombard speech for conditions with female (F0: 37.0 Hz vs. 39.3 Hz ...
[23]
[PDF] THE LOMBARD EFFECT IN MRI NOISE
This study has shown that the Lombard effect occurs in MRI noise, affecting formant frequencies, vowel space dispersion and spectral tilt. Effects are both.Missing: enhanced separation
[24]
Enhanced contrast for vowels in utterance focus: A cross-language ...
May 1, 2006 · Talkers tend to produce more widely dispersed vowel categories, yielding less acoustic overlap among categories, when speaking to non-native ...
[25]
The Lombard Sign and the Role of Hearing in Speech
Lombard noted in 1911 that a speaker changes his voice level similarly when the ambient noise level increases, on the one hand, and when the level at which ...Missing: experiments | Show results with:experiments
[26]
The effect of hearing protection worn by talker and/or target listener ...
Sep 8, 2022 · The Lombard effect was found to be reduced in fluctuating noises due to their weaker masking effect compared to continuous noises at the same ...
[27]
Atypical delayed auditory feedback effect and Lombard effect on ...
Sep 22, 2015 · Atypical delayed auditory feedback effect and Lombard effect on speech production in high-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder. I- ...
[28]
[PDF] Sensitivity of Speech Output to Delayed Auditory Feedback in ...
Oct 29, 2018 · between 100 and 200 ms): this leads to slowing of speech output ... delayed auditory feedback effect and Lombard effect on speech production in.
[29]
Evidence that the Lombard effect is frequency-specific in humans
Jul 11, 2013 · Findings show that the Lombard effect is sensitive to frequencies vital for speech and is not a general response to any competing sound in the ...
[30]
https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4948587
[31]
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/220/6/1032/18846/The-Lombard-effect-emerges-early-in-young-bats
[32]
The Lombard effect emerges early in young bats
Early onset of the Lombard effect. We found that, at around 2 weeks of age, all four tested infant bats produced significantly louder short vocalizations in ...
[33]
The Lombard sign as a function of age and task - PubMed
All subjects increased vocal intensity in the presence of noise. Children increased intensity equally in both tasks. Adults increased intensity more during the ...Missing: effect progression
[34]
Voice Intensity Control in Bilingual Speech: Noise Masking Evidence
Correlation analyses also revealed that poorer speech fluency or L2 auditory acuity was associated with larger Lombard effect. Conclusions. For late ...
[35]
The Effect of the Frequency and Energetic Content of Broadband ...
Oct 10, 2023 · The Lombard effect is an unconscious reflex of speakers to increase vocal effort when disturbed by noise, aiming to enhance speech ...2. Materials And Methods · 2.2. Room Acoustics And... · 3. Results<|control11|><|separator|>
[36]
Auditory Deprivation during Development Alters Efferent Neural ...
Developmental auditory deprivation because of otitis media, a common childhood disease, produces long-standing changes in the central auditory system.Missing: Lombard | Show results with:Lombard
[37]
https://audiologyblog.phonakpro.com/how-loud-is-loud-speech-and-can-hearing-aids-process-a-shout/
[38]
https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/147/3/1418/993510/A-speech-perturbation-strategy-based-on-Lombard
[39]
[PDF] Choir acoustics - an overview of scientific research published to date
The Lombard effect in choir singers was studied by Tonkinson (1990). The Lombard effect is the tendency to raise one's voice in the presence of other loud ...<|separator|>
[40]
How loud is loud speech and can hearing aids process a shout?
As examples, opera singers routinely exceed 100 dBA and a lion's roar will exceed 110 dBA. The Lombard effect. Spoken language may also reach higher levels ...
[41]
A speech perturbation strategy based on “Lombard effect” for ...
Mar 3, 2020 · The goal of this study is to determine potential intelligibility benefits from Lombard speech for cochlear implant (CI) listeners in ...
[42]
“Lombard Effect” and Voice Changes in Adductor Laryngeal ...
May 10, 2024 · The aim was to describe the acoustic, auditory-perceptive, and subjective voice changes under the Lombard effect (LE) in adductor laryngeal dystonia (AdLD) ...
[43]
Detecting Lombard Speech Using Deep Learning Approach - PMC
This study proposes a strategy to detect Lombard speech using a machine learning approach for applications such as public address systems that work in near ...
[44]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3574330/
[45]
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/31/10737
[46]
Neural Correlates of the Lombard Effect in Primate Auditory Cortex
Aug 1, 2012 · Neurons with weaker suppression or no vocalization-induced modulation (unmasked −0.2 ≤ RMI ≤ 0.2) showed a mix of small increases or decreases ...Missing: percentage | Show results with:percentage
[47]
Effects of noise and behavioral context on vocalization structure - NIH
Vocal modifications in primates: Effects of noise and behavioral context on vocalization structure ... Lombard effect), changes to call durations, and ...
[48]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235739094_The_Lombard_effect_and_other_noise-induced_vocal_modifications_Insight_from_mammalian_communication_systems
[49]
Signal-specific amplitude adjustment to noise in common bottlenose ...
Dec 3, 2019 · We present evidence of a Lombard response in the range 0.1-0.3 dB per 1 dB increase in ambient noise, which is similar to that of terrestrial animals.
[50]
Review The Lombard Effect: From Acoustics to Neural Mechanisms
The Lombard effect – a rise in call amplitude in response to background noise – has been demonstrated in a wide range of vertebrates. Here, we review both ...
[51]
lombard vocal response: Topics by Science.gov
Potential compensatory mechanisms (increased subglottal pressure, muscle activation, and supraglottal constriction) are adjusted to restore an acoustic ...
[52]
The Effects of Noise on Animals | SpringerLink
Oct 4, 2022 · Changes in vocal effort such as increases in amplitude, repetition rate, and duration, or frequency shifts are collectively known as the Lombard ...