1 / 28

Ryan Kilgore Mark Chignell University of Toronto IBM CAS, KMDI 03 | 22 | 06

seeing unfamiliar voices. does visualization of spatial position enhance voice identification?. Ryan Kilgore Mark Chignell University of Toronto IBM CAS, KMDI 03 | 22 | 06. presentation overview. Voice collaboration and spatial audio Visualizing audio spaces Experimental methodology

dayton
Download Presentation

Ryan Kilgore Mark Chignell University of Toronto IBM CAS, KMDI 03 | 22 | 06

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. seeing unfamiliar voices does visualization of spatial position enhance voice identification? Ryan KilgoreMark Chignell University of Toronto IBM CAS, KMDI03 | 22 | 06

  2. presentation overview • Voice collaboration and spatial audio • Visualizing audio spaces • Experimental methodology • Results • Discussion 02 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  3. problems with voice collaboration • Traditional methods of synchronous communication do not adequately support large groups • Monaural audio, lack of visual feedback, and poor audio quality make it difficult to determine: • Who is present? • Who is speaking? • What is being said? 03 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  4. Free-Field Acoustics Virtual Acoustics S S1 S2 S1 S2 spatial audio | overview 04 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  5. spatial audio | benefits(1 of 2) • Reduction in masking; facilitation of auditory scene analysis (Bregman, 1990; Gilkey & Anderson, 1997) • Increased speech intelligibility in noisy environments (Ericson & McKinley, 1997) • Increased speech intelligibility in multi-talker listening tasks (Drullman & Bronkhorst, 2000; Abouchacra, 2001; Bolia, 2001) 05 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  6. spatial audio | benefits(2 of 2) • Distinct voice locations aid in cognition of audio conference events (Baldis, 2001; Kilgore et al, 2003) • Significantly preferred to traditional, monaural voice presentation • Reduced perception of attention required for speaker identification task • Increased speaker identification performance, particularly for ‘personalized’ audio spaces 06 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  7. Vocal Village interface 07 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  8. visualization | audio spaces • Early Vocal Village field trials indicated users want GUI for monitoring and controlling audio space • Participants in audio-only field trials have highlighted the difficulty of knowing who was present in the audio space (Singer et al, 1999) • Visual modality can convey awareness-supporting information parallel to audio communication • Will increased awareness of voice locations aid listeners in learning to identify completely unfamiliar voices? 08 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  9. visualization|previous studies • Spatially arranged photos of speakers showed no performance benefits but preference (Baldis, 2001) • Graphic insert w/ voice names and locations showed no benefit to voice identification in an ATC task (MacDonald, 2002) • HOWEVER: These studies used familiar collaborators, or were limited to only four voices 09 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  10. experiment|overview • Determine if visual representation of voice locations will aid listeners in learning to recognize voices that are completely unfamiliar • Dependent variables: • Accuracy and response time for voice identification task • Confidence in voice identification task performance • Mental workload (NASA-TLX) (Hart & Staveland, 1998) 10 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  11. experiment|methodology (1 of 2) • Modified Coordinate Response Measure (CRM) listening task (Bolia et al, 2000) • “Ready [call sign], go to [color][number] now” • 4 male, 4 female voices • Response to target with color, number, speaker’s name • 27 Participants, no voice training • Provided performance feedback (w/ correct answer) 11 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  12. experiment|methodology(2 of 2) • Two independent variables: • 4 experimental blocks • 40 stimuli per block (160 total) 12 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  13. experiment|stimuli 13 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  14. experiment 3 |results (1 of 3) Correct Voice Identifications by Experimental Block Experimental Block F[3, 30] = 61.15, p < .001 Number of Voices F[1, 30] = 68.21, p < .001 Format F[2, 30] = 1.39, p = .27 Number × Format F < 1 15 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  15. experiment 3 |results (2 of 3) • Removed data for low-learning participants: • Excluded subjects that showed no improvement in voice identification over duration of experiment • 2 Mono participants removed3 Spatial participants removed3 Spatial+Visual participants removed 16 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  16. experiment 3 |results (3 of 3) Correct Voice Identifications (low-learning subjects removed) 4V: Format × Block F < 1 8: Format × Block F[2,10] = 5.43, p = .025 17 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  17. discussion • Simple visual representation of voice locations improves the learning of completely unfamiliar voices in larger audio spaces (8 talkers) • Visualizations continue to support identification as voices become increasingly familiar • Spatial presentation of voice, coupled with low-cost visualization methods, may be particularly useful in supporting: • Large collaborative groups • Groups with limited familiarity 18 | 19 Kilgore & Chignell, Seeing Unfamiliar Voices | HFT 2006

  18. current work – visual scale 19 | 19

  19. questions? fin

  20. references (1 of 2) Abouchacra, K., (2001). Binaural Helmet: Improving speech recognition in noise with spatialized sound. Human Factors, 43 (4), 584. Baldis, Jessica., (2001). Effects of spatial audio on memory, comprehension, and preference during desktop conferences. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vol. 3, 166-173. Bregman, A. S., (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bolia, Robert S., W. Todd Nelson, Mark A. Ericson, and Brian D. Simpson, (2000). A speech corpus for multitalker communication research. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107 (2) 1065-1066. Bolia, R., (2001). Asymmetric performance in the cocktail party effect: implications for the design of Spatial Audio Displays. Human Factors, 43 (2), 208. Drullman, Rob and Adelbert W. Bronkhorst, (2000). Multichannel speech intelligibility and talker recognition using monaural, binaural, and three-dimensional auditory presentation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(4), 2224-2235. Ericson, M.A., and R. L. McKinley, (1997). The intelligibility of multiple talkers separated spatially in noise. In Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, Gilkey, Robert H. and Timothy R. Anderson Eds., NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 701-724. ref1

  21. references (2 of 2) Gilkey, Robert H. and Timothy R. Anderson Eds., (1997). Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hart, S.G., and Staveland, L.E., (1988). Development of the NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In P.A. Hancock, and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, 139-183. Kilgore, Ryan M., Mark Chignell and Paul W. Smith, (2003). Spatialized audioconferencing: what are the benefits? Proceedings of the 2003 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies Conference on Collaborative Research, 111-120. MacDonald, J. (2002). Intelligibility of speech in a virtual 3-D environment. Human Factors, 44(2), 272. Singer, A., Hindus, D., Stifelman, L., and S. White, (1999),.Tangible progress: less is more in Somewire audio spaces, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 104-111. ref2

  22. spatial audio|explanation • Perception of relative differences between signals picked up by the left and right ears • Allows people with binaural hearing to locate sound sources in three-dimensional space • Product of multiple interaural cues: IID, ITD, HRTFs

  23. experimental interface

  24. Vocal Village interface

  25. experiment 4|visual stimuli (1 of 2)

  26. 25.5” 10” 2” experiment 4 |visual stimuli (2 of 2)

  27. Half-Scale (12°) Full-Scale (24°) experiment 4|audio stimuli

  28. thanks • UofT Interactive Media Lab and the Vocal Village development team • My committee (Mark Chignell, Greg Jamieson, Ron Baecker) • IBM Centre for Advanced Studies, Toronto • Knowledge Media Design Institute

More Related