Modeling the effects of a single reflection on binaural speech intelligibility.

Recently the influence of delay and azimuth of a single speech reflection on speech reception thresholds (SRTs) was systematically investigated using frontal, diffuse, and lateral noise [Warzybok et al. (2013). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 269-282]. The experiments showed that the benefit of an early reflection was independent of its azimuth and mostly independent of noise type, but that the detrimental effect of a late reflection depended on its direction relative to the noise. This study tests if different extensions of a binaural speech intelligibility model can predict these data. The extensions differ in the order in which binaural processing and temporal integration of early reflections take place. Models employing a correction for the detrimental effects of reverberation on speech intelligibility after performing the binaural processing predict SRTs in symmetric masking conditions (frontal, diffuse), but cannot predict the measured interaction of temporal and spatial integration. In contrast, a model extension accounting for the distinction between useful and detrimental reflections before the binaural processing stage predicts the data with an overall R(2) of 0.95. This indicates that any model framework predicting speech intelligibility in rooms should incorporate an interaction between binaural and temporal integration of reflections at a comparatively early stage.

[1]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Speech segregation in rooms: monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  R. Drullman,et al.  Binaural intelligibility prediction based on the speech transmission index. , 2008, 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]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  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.

[6]  T Houtgast,et al.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  D S Brungart,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  E. C. Cherry Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears , 1953 .

[10]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  Effects of spatial and temporal integration of a single early reflection on speech intelligibility. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Prediction of the influence of reverberation on binaural speech intelligibility in noise and in quiet. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  N. Popplewell,et al.  Combined effects of early reflections and background noise on speech intelligibility , 1989 .

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

[16]  Torsten Dau,et al.  The influence of masker type on early reflection processing and speech intelligibility (L). , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  A K Nábĕlek,et al.  Influence of the precedence effect on word identification by normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  J. S. Bradley,et al.  On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Iris Arweiler,et al.  The influence of spectral characteristics of early reflections on speech intelligibility. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Binaural prediction of speech intelligibility in reverberant rooms with multiple noise sources. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  J.P.A. Lochner,et al.  The influence of reflections on auditorium acoustics , 1964 .

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

[23]  P. Van cauwenberge,et al.  Sensitivity of transient evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions to the direct effects of noise on the human cochlea. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[24]  T. Houtgast,et al.  The concept of signal-to-noise ratio in the modulation domain and speech intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Prediction of reverberant speech intelligibility against multiple noise interferers in rooms: Binaural useful‐to‐detrimental ratios. , 2010 .

[26]  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.