Variability and uncertainty in masking by competing speech.

This study investigated the role of uncertainty in masking of speech by interfering speech. Target stimuli were nonsense sentences recorded by a female talker. Masking sentences were recorded from ten female talkers and combined into pairs. Listeners' recognition performance was measured with both target and masker presented from a front loudspeaker (nonspatial condition) or with a masker presented from two loudspeakers, with the right leading the front by 4 ms (spatial condition). In Experiment 1, the sentences were presented in blocks in which the masking talkers, spatial configuration, and signal-to-noise (S-N) ratio were fixed. Listeners' recognition performance varied widely among the masking talkers in the nonspatial condition, much less so in the spatial condition. This result was attributed to variation in effectiveness of informational masking in the nonspatial condition. The second experiment increased uncertainty by randomizing masking talkers and S-N ratios across trials in some conditions, and reduced uncertainty by presenting the same token of masker across trials in other conditions. These variations in masker uncertainty had relatively small effects on speech recognition.

[1]  Frederick J. Gallun,et al.  Binaural release from informational masking in a speech identification task. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  G. Kidd,et al.  The effect of spatial separation on informational masking of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Marjorie R. Leek,et al.  Informational masking and auditory attention , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  B A Wright,et al.  Strategies used to detect auditory signals in small sets of random maskers. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  K S Helfer,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual perception of clear and conversational speech. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[7]  R. Freyman,et al.  The role of visual speech cues in reducing energetic and informational masking. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Liang Li,et al.  Does the information content of an irrelevant source differentially affect spoken word recognition in younger and older adults? , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Informational masking: counteracting the effects of stimulus uncertainty by decreasing target-masker similarity. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

[13]  C. Darwin,et al.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Precedence-based speech segregation in a virtual auditory environment. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  T W Tillman,et al.  Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  G. Kidd,et al.  The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Frederick J. Gallun,et al.  The advantage of knowing where to listen. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[19]  C S Watson,et al.  Factors in the discrimination of tonal patterns. II. Selective attention and learning under various levels of stimulus uncertainty. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Virginia M Richards,et al.  Cuing effects for informational masking. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  G. Kidd,et al.  Similarity, uncertainty, and masking in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  H S Colburn,et al.  Reducing informational masking by sound segregation. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Within-ear and across-ear interference in a dichotic cocktail party listening task: effects of masker uncertainty. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Neil L. Aaronson,et al.  Release from speech-on-speech masking by adding a delayed masker at a different location. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Informational masking for simultaneous nonspeech stimuli: psychometric functions for fixed and randomly mixed maskers. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  S. G. Nooteboom,et al.  Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices , 1982 .

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