Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding.

Some of the most common interfering background sounds a listener experiences are the sounds of other talkers. In Experiment 1, recognition for natural Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) sentences was measured in normal-hearing adults at two fixed signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) in 16 backgrounds with the same long-term spectrum: unprocessed speech babble (1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 talkers), noise-vocoded versions of the babbles (12 channels), noise modulated with the wide-band envelope of the speech babbles, and unmodulated noise. All talkers were adult males. For a given number of talkers, natural speech was always the most effective masker. The greatest changes in performance occurred as the number of talkers in the maskers increased from 1 to 2 or 4, with small changes thereafter. In Experiment 2, the same targets and maskers (1, 2, and 16 talkers) were used to measure speech reception thresholds (SRTs) adaptively. Periodicity in the target was also manipulated by noise-vocoding, which led to considerably higher SRTs. The greatest masking effect always occurred for the masker type most similar to the target, while the effects of the number of talkers were generally small. Implications are drawn with reference to glimpsing, informational vs energetic masking, overall SNR, and aspects of periodicity.

[1]  Alexandra MacPherson The factors affectng the psychometric function for speech intelligibility , 2013 .

[2]  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.

[3]  Xihong Wu,et al.  Informational masking of speech produced by speech-like sounds without linguistic content. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  John F Culling,et al.  Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: evidence for harmonic cancellation. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  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.

[6]  Pamela E Souza,et al.  Effects of age on concurrent vowel perception in acoustic and simulated electroacoustic hearing. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[7]  Paul M Ridker,et al.  Rosuvastatin for primary prevention in patients with European systematic coronary risk evaluation risk ≥5% or Framingham risk >20%: post hoc analyses of the JUPITER trial requested by European health authorities , 2010, European heart journal.

[8]  Pamela Souza,et al.  Effects of Age on F0 Discrimination and Intonation Perception in Simulated Electric and Electroacoustic Hearing , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[9]  Roy D Patterson,et al.  Effects of voicing in the recognition of concurrent syllables. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Michael A Akeroyd,et al.  Informational masking in young and elderly listeners for speech masked by simultaneous speech and noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

[13]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  The neural processing of masked speech: evidence for different mechanisms in the left and right temporal lobes. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  B. Shinn-Cunningham Object-based auditory and visual attention , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[17]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Constructing adequate non-speech analogues: what is special about speech anyway? , 2007, Developmental science.

[18]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  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.

[20]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  Jens C. Streibig,et al.  Bioassay analysis using R , 2005 .

[22]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  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.

[25]  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.

[26]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  A positron emission tomography study of the neural basis of informational and energetic masking effects in speech perception. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  N. Schenker,et al.  Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: What do they mean in terms of statistical significance? , 2003, Journal of insect science.

[28]  R. Suter Trichobothrial mediation of an aquatic escape response: Directional jumps by the fishing spider, Dolomedes triton, foil frog attacks , 2003, Journal of insect science.

[29]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  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.

[31]  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.

[32]  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.

[33]  A Faulkner,et al.  Effects of the Number of Channels and Speech-to-Noise Ratio on Rate of Connected Discourse Tracking Through a Simulated Cochlear Implant Speech Processor , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[34]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[36]  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.

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

[38]  S McAdams,et al.  Identification of concurrent harmonic and inharmonic vowels: a test of the theory of harmonic cancellation and enhancement. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Dafydd Gibbon,et al.  EUROM - a spoken language resource for the EU - the SAM projects , 1995, EUROSPEECH.

[40]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF SPEECH IN FLUCTUATING NOISE , 1993 .

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

[42]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[43]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  T. O. Kvålseth Cautionary Note about R 2 , 1985 .

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

[46]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

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

[48]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

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

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