An evaluation of intrusive instrumental intelligibility metrics

TL;DR

This paper evaluates 12 instrumental intelligibility metrics across various distortions, identifying top performers SIIB and HASPI, and introduces a faster version of SIIB with comparable accuracy, highlighting challenges in generalization.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive evaluation of existing intelligibility metrics, analyzes their generalization limitations, and proposes a new, computationally efficient SIIB variant.

Findings

SIIB and HASPI achieved the highest correlation with listening tests.

Intelligibility metrics perform poorly on unseen distortion types.

Modified SIIB and STOI reduce statistical dependencies, improving performance.

Abstract

Instrumental intelligibility metrics are commonly used as an alternative to listening tests. This paper evaluates 12 monaural intrusive intelligibility metrics: SII, HEGP, CSII, HASPI, NCM, QSTI, STOI, ESTOI, MIKNN, SIMI, SIIB, and $\text{sEPSM}^\text{corr}$. In addition, this paper investigates the ability of intelligibility metrics to generalize to new types of distortions and analyzes why the top performing metrics have high performance. The intelligibility data were obtained from 11 listening tests described in the literature. The stimuli included Dutch, Danish, and English speech that was distorted by additive noise, reverberation, competing talkers, pre-processing enhancement, and post-processing enhancement. SIIB and HASPI had the highest performance achieving a correlation with listening test scores on average of $\rho=0.92$ and $\rho=0.89$, respectively. The high performance of SIIB may, in part, be the result of SIIBs developers having access to all the intelligibility data considered in the evaluation. The results show that intelligibility metrics tend to perform poorly on data sets that were not used during their development. By modifying the original implementations of SIIB and STOI, the advantage of reducing statistical dependencies between input features is demonstrated. Additionally, the paper presents a new version of SIIB called $\text{SIIB}^\text{Gauss}$, which has similar performance to SIIB and HASPI, but takes less time to compute by two orders of magnitude.