Increase in speech recognition due to linguistic mismatch between target and masker speech: monolingual and simultaneous bilingual performance.

PURPOSE To examine whether improved speech recognition during linguistically mismatched target-masker experiments is due to linguistic unfamiliarity of the masker speech or linguistic dissimilarity between the target and masker speech. METHOD Monolingual English speakers (n = 20) and English-Greek simultaneous bilinguals (n = 20) listened to English sentences in the presence of competing English and Greek speech. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects regression models to determine differences in English recogition performance between the 2 groups and 2 masker conditions. RESULTS Results indicated that English sentence recognition for monolinguals and simultaneous English-Greek bilinguals improved when the masker speech changed from competing English to competing Greek speech. CONCLUSION The improvement in speech recognition that has been observed for linguistically mismatched target-masker experiments cannot be simply explained by the masker language being linguistically unknown or unfamiliar to the listeners. Listeners can improve their speech recognition in linguistically mismatched target-masker experiments even when the listener is able to obtain meaningful linguistic information from the masker speech.

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

[2]  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.

[3]  Jon Barker,et al.  The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R L Freyman,et al.  Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native talkers. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  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.

[8]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Joan Besing,et al.  Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[11]  S Buus,et al.  Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  O. García,et al.  Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective , 2008 .

[13]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. , 2002, Psychology and aging.

[14]  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.

[15]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  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.

[17]  A. Arvaniti Greek Phonetics: The State of the Art , 2007 .

[18]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  New sentence recognition materials developed using a basic non-native English lexicon. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[20]  Andrew Stuart,et al.  Reception thresholds for sentences in quiet and noise for monolingual English and bilingual Mandarin-English listeners. , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  Kristin J. Van Engen,et al.  Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble , 2010, Speech Commun..

[22]  E. Bialystok,et al.  Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages for metalinguistic awareness and executive control , 2012, Cognition.

[23]  R. Keith,et al.  An effect of linguistic experience. Auditory word discrimination by native and non-native speakers of English. , 1978, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[24]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  The effectiveness of clear speech as a masker. , 2010, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[25]  G. Richard Tucker,et al.  Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective , 2011 .

[26]  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.

[27]  E. Peña,et al.  Understanding bilingualism and its impact on speech audiometry. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[28]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content. , 2012, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  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.

[31]  Lu-Feng Shi Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of english acquisition. , 2010, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[32]  H. P. Fairchild Greek Immigration To The United States , 2008 .

[33]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  C. Champlin,et al.  Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (English) listeners. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[35]  Robert C. Bilger,et al.  Standardization of a Test of Speech Perception in Noise , 1984 .

[36]  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.