Evidence for independent time-unit processing of speech using noise promoting or suppressing masking release (L).

The relative independence of time-unit processing during speech reception was examined. It was found that temporally interpolated noise, even at very high levels, had little effect on sentence recognition using masking-release conditions similar to those of Kwon et al. [(2012). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 3111-3119]. The current data confirm the earlier conclusions of Kwon et al. involving masking release based on the relative timing of speech and noise. These data also indicate substantial levels of independence in the time domain, which has implications for current theories of speech perception in noise.

[1]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  On Ideal Binary Mask As the Computational Goal of Auditory Scene Analysis , 2005, Speech Separation by Humans and Machines.

[2]  Eric W Healy,et al.  A glimpsing account of the role of temporal fine structure information in speech recognition. , 2013, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[3]  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.

[4]  Martin Cooke,et al.  A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  R. Patterson.  Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[8]  P. Loizou,et al.  Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: implications for noise reduction. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  W A Yost,et al.  Across-critical-band processing of amplitude-modulated tones. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  E. Healy,et al.  Relative contribution of off- and on-frequency spectral components of background noise to the masking of unprocessed and vocoded speech. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  Determination of the Potential Benefit of Time-Frequency Gain Manipulation , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[12]  E. Healy,et al.  On the number of auditory filter outputs needed to understand speech: Further evidence for auditory channel independence , 2009, Hearing Research.

[13]  R. Miller.  Masking Effect of Periodically Pulsed Tones as a Function of Time and Frequency , 1947 .

[14]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The masking of speech. , 1947, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  H. Levitt.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  J. Zwislocki,et al.  Adaptation of the Ear to Sound Stimuli , 1949 .

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

[18]  Eric W Healy,et al.  Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[20]  Joseph W. Hall,et al.  Detection in noise by spectro-temporal pattern analysis. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  W. A. Munson,et al.  The Growth of Auditory Sensation , 1947 .

[22]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Auditory induction: Reciprocal changes in alternating sounds , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.