On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech.

Stone et al. [(2012). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 317-326] showed that a masker constructed to produce a near-constant envelope at the output of each auditory filter reduced speech intelligibility less than maskers of the same mean level with fluctuating envelopes, produced by 100% sinusoidal amplitude modulation (SAM) at 8 Hz. Here, this effect was explored for a range of SAM rates from 1 to 81 Hz. Speech was filtered into 28 channels. A sinusoidal masker centered on each channel was added to the channel signal. The maskers were either unmodulated or had 100% SAM. In most conditions, even-numbered channels were presented to one ear and odd-numbered channels to the other. The signal-to-masker ratio was adapted to measure the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) corresponding to 50% correct. The fluctuating masker benefit (FMB), the difference in SRT between the SAM and unmodulated masker, was negative for all SAM frequencies except 1 Hz. Due to the different slopes of the psychometric functions, when SRTs were inferred for more realistic performance levels, 74% or more, FMB was zero or negative for all SAM rates. It is concluded that a positive FMB, when it occurs, is a release from modulation and not energetic masking.

[1]  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.

[2]  S. Rosen,et al.  Uncomodulated glimpsing in "checkerboard" noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Eric W Healy,et al.  The effect of smoothing filter slope and spectral frequency on temporal speech information. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking (L) , 2003 .

[6]  B. Moore,et al.  Temporal and spectral masking release in low- and mid-frequency regions for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. Patterson,et al.  Time-domain modeling of peripheral auditory processing: a modular architecture and a software platform. , 1995, 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]  D P Phillips,et al.  Word recognition performance in continuous and interrupted broad-band noise by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners. , 1995, The American journal of otology.

[10]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

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

[12]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Testing the concept of a modulation filter bank: the audibility of component modulation and detection of phase change in three-component modulators. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  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.

[14]  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.

[15]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  High-rate envelope information in many channels provides resistance to reduction of speech intelligibility produced by multi-channel fast-acting compression. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[18]  M. Ericson,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  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.

[21]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  A. Cheveigné Concurrent vowel identification. III. A neural model of harmonic interference cancellation , 1997 .

[23]  T W Tillman,et al.  Binaural maskin of speech by periodically modulated noise. , 1966, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Kohlrausch,et al.  The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat-detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Charles S. Watson,et al.  Some comments on informational masking , 2005 .

[27]  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.

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

[29]  S. Shamma,et al.  Spectro-temporal modulation transfer functions and speech intelligibility. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  B. Moore,et al.  Use of high-rate envelope speech cues and their perceptually relevant dynamic range for the hearing impaired. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Joshua G. W. Bernstein,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  T. Dau,et al.  Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[34]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Intelligibility of whispered speech in stationary and modulated noise maskers. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  A. Duquesnoy Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  T. Brand,et al.  Microscopic prediction of speech recognition for listeners with normal hearing in noise using an auditory model. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Frédéric Berthommier,et al.  Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise , 2006, Hearing Research.

[40]  T. Houtgast Frequency selectivity in amplitude-modulation detection. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  D. Grantham,et al.  Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  Joshua G W Bernstein,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  B. Moore,et al.  Relative contribution to speech intelligibility of different envelope modulation rates within the speech dynamic range. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  C. M. Marin,et al.  Concurrent vowel identification II: Effects of phase, harmonicity and task , 1997 .

[46]  T. Dau,et al.  Characterizing frequency selectivity for envelope fluctuations. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  A review of speech masking release for hearing-impaired listeners with near-normal perception of speech in unmodulated noise maskers , 2012 .

[48]  R. Plomp The Role of Modulation in Hearing , 1983 .

[49]  Kamil K. Wójcicki,et al.  Channel selection in the modulation domain for improved speech intelligibility in noise. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  B C Moore,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.