Speech intelligibility among modulated and spatially distributed noise sources.

At a cocktail party, listeners are faced with multiple, spatially distributed interfering voices. The dominant interfering voice may change from moment to moment and, consequently, change in spatial location. The ability of the binaural system to deal with such a dynamic scene has not been systematically analyzed. Spatial release from masking (SRM) was measured in simple spatial scenes, simulated over headphones with a frontal speech source. For a single noise at 105°, SRM was reduced if that noise modulated (10 Hz square wave, 50% duty cycle, 20 dB modulation depth), but, for two noises in symmetrical locations, SRM increased if the noises were modulated in alternation, suggesting that the binaural system can "switch" between exploiting different spatial configurations. Experiment 2 assessed the contributions of interaural time and level differences as a function of modulation rate (1-20 Hz). Scenes were created using the original head-related impulse responses and ones that had been manipulated to isolate each cue. SRM decreased steeply with modulation rate. The combined effects of interaural time and level differences were consistent with additive contributions. The results indicate that binaural sluggishness limits the contribution of binaural switching to speech understanding at a cocktail party.

[1]  L. A. Jeffress,et al.  Effect of Varying the Interaural Noise Correlation on the Detectability of Tonal Signals , 1963 .

[2]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Prediction of binaural speech intelligibility against noise in rooms. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Revision, extension, and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Nandini Iyer,et al.  Better-ear glimpsing efficiency with symmetrically-placed interfering talkers. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: effect of location and type of interferer. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Frederic L. Wightman,et al.  Detectability of varying interaural temporal differencesa) , 1978 .

[7]  N. I. Durlach,et al.  Binaural signal detection - Equalization and cancellation theory. , 1972 .

[8]  S Theo Goverts,et al.  Effects of reverberation and masker fluctuations on binaural unmasking of speech. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  A cocktail party model of spatial release from masking by both noise and speech interferers. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  R. Plomp,et al.  The Reception Threshold of Interrupted Speech for Hearing-Impaired Listeners , 1983 .

[11]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Revision and validation of a binaural model for speech intelligibility in noise , 2011, Hearing Research.

[12]  R. Plomp.  A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  A Kohlrausch.  Binaural masking experiments using noise maskers with frequency-dependent interaural phase differences. II: Influence of frequency and interaural-phase uncertainty. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  The role of head-induced interaural time and level differences in the speech reception threshold for multiple interfering sound sources. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  H S Colburn,et al.  Binaural sluggishness in the perception of tone sequences and speech in noise. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  M A Akeroyd,et al.  A binaural analog of gap detection. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[20]  W A Yost.  Prior stimulation and the masking-level difference. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  W. G. Gardner,et al.  HRTF measurements of a KEMAR , 1995 .

[22]  F L Wightman,et al.  Detectability of a pulsed tone in the presence of a masker with time-varying interaural correlation. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  B. Moore,et al.  Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[26]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The Influence of Masker Type on the Binaural Intelligibility Level Difference , 2007 .

[27]  B. Moore,et al.  Temporal window shape as a function of frequency and level. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Andrew J. Kolarik,et al.  Measurement of the binaural temporal window using a lateralisation task , 2009, Hearing Research.

[29]  William Noble,et al.  Hearing speech against spatially separate competing speech versus competing noise , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  B. Franklin.  Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. , 1981 .

[32]  F L Wightman,et al.  Detectability of varying interaural temporal differences. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Binaural forward and backward masking: evidence for sluggishness in binaural detection. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  N. Durlach.  Equalization and Cancellation Theory of Binaural Masking‐Level Differences , 1963 .

[35]  R. Beutelmann,et al.  Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  J. Culling,et al.  Measurements of the binaural temporal window using a detection task , 1998 .

[37]  Nathaniel I Durlach,et al.  Application of an extended equalization-cancellation model to speech intelligibility with spatially distributed maskers. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  D W Grantham.  Discrimination of dynamic interaural intensity differences. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  J. M. Festen.  Speech-Reception Threshold in a Fluctuating Background Sound and its Possible Relation to Temporal Auditory Resolution , 1987 .

[40]  John F Culling,et al.  Evidence specifically favoring the equalization-cancellation theory of binaural unmasking. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.