Real-time lexical competitions during speech-in-speech comprehension

This study aimed at characterizing the cognitive processes that come into play during speech-in-speech comprehension by examining lexical competitions between target speech and concurrent multi-talker babble. We investigated the effects of number of simultaneous talkers (2, 4, 6 or 8) and of the token frequency of the words that compose the babble (high or low) on lexical decision to target words. Results revealed a decrease in performance as measured by reaction times to targets with increasing number of concurrent talkers. Crucially, the frequency of words in the babble significantly affected performance: high-frequency babble interfered more strongly (by lengthening reaction times) with word recognition than low-frequency babble. This informational masking was particularly salient when only two talkers were present in the babble due to the availability of identifiable lexical items from the background. Our findings suggest that speech comprehension in multi-talker babble can trigger competitions at the lexical level between target and background. They further highlight the importance of investigating speech-in-speech comprehension situations as they may provide crucial information on interactive and competitive mechanisms that occur in real-time during word recognition.

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  D. G. MacKay The Problems of Flexibility, Fluency, and Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off in Skilled Behavior. , 1982 .

[3]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception , 2007, Hearing Research.

[4]  Jérôme Farinas,et al.  Automatic estimation of speaking rate in multilingual spontaneous speech , 2004, Speech Prosody 2004.

[5]  M. Turvey,et al.  Initial phonemes are detected faster in spoken words than in spoken nonwords , 1976 .

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[7]  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.

[8]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  K. Forster,et al.  REPETITION PRIMING AND FREQUENCY ATTENUATION IN LEXICAL ACCESS , 1984 .

[11]  Régine André-Obrecht,et al.  A new statistical approach for the automatic segmentation of continuous speech signals , 1988, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[12]  P. Boersma Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.05) , 2009 .

[13]  D. Norris Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition , 1994, Cognition.

[14]  T. Picton,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down influences on auditory scene analysis: evidence from event-related brain potentials. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Donald G. MacKay,et al.  The organization of perception and action. A theory for language and other cognitive skills , 1987, The Italian Journal of Neurological Sciences.

[16]  M. Cooke,et al.  Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  M. Cooke,et al.  Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[20]  A. B.,et al.  SPEECH COMMUNICATION , 2001 .

[21]  Albert S. Bregman,et al.  The Auditory Scene. (Book Reviews: Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound.) , 1990 .

[22]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Lexical access without attention? Explorations using dichotic priming. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Lexique 2 : A new French lexical database , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[24]  R Plomp,et al.  Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Basic processes in reading : visual word recognition , 1993 .

[26]  Janellen Huttenlocher,et al.  Why does memory span increase with age? , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  G. Altmann,et al.  Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives - Workshop Overview , 1989, AI Mag..

[28]  Claude Alain,et al.  Effects of Attentional Load on Auditory Scene Analysis , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  A. Samuel Lexical Activation Produces Potent Phonemic Percepts , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  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.

[31]  Fanny Meunier,et al.  Phonetic and lexical interferences in informational masking during speech-in-speech comprehension , 2007, Speech Commun..

[32]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access , 1991 .

[33]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Computational and behavioral investigations of lexically induced delays in phoneme recognition , 2005 .

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

[36]  A G Samuel,et al.  Knowing a Word Affects the Fundamental Perception of The Sounds Within it , 2001, Psychological science.

[37]  Timothy E. Moore,et al.  Subliminal self-help auditory tapes: An empirical test of perceptual consequences. , 1995 .

[38]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[39]  Kristin J. Van Engen,et al.  Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[41]  E. C. Cmm,et al.  on the Recognition of Speech, with , 2008 .

[42]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Subliminal Speech Priming , 2005, Psychological science.

[43]  François Pellegrino,et al.  Automatic language identification: an alternative approach to phonetic modelling , 2000, Signal Process..

[44]  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.

[45]  A. Bronkhorst,et al.  Multichannel speech intelligibility and talker recognition using monaural, binaural, and three-dimensional auditory presentation. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  M. Taft,et al.  Exploring the cohort model of spoken word recognition , 1986, Cognition.

[47]  Yu He,et al.  Hearing Two Things at Once: Neurophysiological Indices of Speech Segregation and Identification , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[48]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .