Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration.

In phonemic restoration, intelligibility of interrupted speech is enhanced when noise fills the speech gaps. When the broadband envelope of missing speech amplitude modulates the intervening noise, intelligibility is even better. However, this phenomenon represents a perceptual failure: The amplitude modulation, a noise feature, is misattributed to the speech. Experiments explored whether object formation influences how information in the speech gaps is perceptually allocated. Experiment 1 replicates the finding that intelligibility is enhanced when speech-modulated noise rather than unmodulated noise is presented in the gaps. In Experiment 2, interrupted speech was presented diotically, but intervening noises were presented either diotically or with an interaural time difference leading in the right ear, causing the noises to be perceived to the side of the listener. When speech-modulated noise and speech are perceived from different directions, intelligibility is no longer enhanced by the modulation. However, perceived location has no effect for unmodulated noise, which contains no speech-derived information. Results suggest that enhancing object formation reduces misallocation of acoustic features across objects, and demonstrate that our ability to understand noisy speech depends on a cascade of interacting processes, including glimpsing sensory inputs, grouping sensory inputs into objects, and resolving ambiguity through top-down knowledge.

[1]  Virginia Best,et al.  The influence of spatial separation on divided listening. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  W M Hartmann A search for central lateral inhibition. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  J Verschuure,et al.  Intelligibility of interrupted meaningful and nonsense speech with and without intervening noise , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Perceptual segregation of a harmonic from a vowel by interaural time difference and frequency proximity. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  J A Bashford,et al.  Spectral restoration of speech: Intelligibility is increased by inserting noise in spectral gaps , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  B H Repp,et al.  Duplex perception: Confirmation of fusion , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  C. Darwin,et al.  Lateralization of a perturbed harmonic: effects of onset asynchrony and mistuning. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  R. Remez,et al.  Perceptual Organization of Speech , 2008, The Handbook of Speech Perception.

[9]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[10]  R E Pastore,et al.  Evidence for auditory feature integration with spatially distributed items , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  C. J. Darwin,et al.  Chapter 11 – Auditory Grouping , 1995 .

[12]  P J Bailey,et al.  A reexamination of duplex perception evoked by intensity differences , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  A sound element gets lost in perceptual competition , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  A M Liberman,et al.  Duplex perception of cues for stop consonants: Evidence for a phonetic mode , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  R. M. Warren Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds , 1970, Science.

[16]  J A Bashford,et al.  Use of speech-modulated noise adds strong “bottom-up” cues for phonemic restoration , 1996, Perception & Psychophysics.

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

[18]  I. Winkler,et al.  The role of attention in the formation of auditory streams , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  D H Whalen,et al.  Limits on phonetic integration in duplex perception , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[22]  Charles Darwin,et al.  Binaural factors in auditory continuity , 2002 .

[23]  K. O’Connor,et al.  Encoding of Illusory Continuity in Primary Auditory Cortex , 2007, Neuron.

[24]  G. L. Powers,et al.  Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech with and without intervening noise. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Comparison of the effect of onset asynchrony on auditory grouping in pitch matching and vowel identification , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  C. Darwin Auditory grouping , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  C. Darwin,et al.  Grouping in pitch perception: effects of onset asynchrony and ear of presentation of a mistuned component. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Philip T Quinlan,et al.  Feature and conjunction processing in the auditory modality , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  V. Mann,et al.  Masking and stimulus intensity effects on duplex perception: a confirmation of the dissociation between speech and nonspeech modes. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  R W Hukin,et al.  Perceptual segregation of a harmonic from a vowel by interaural time difference in conjunction with mistuning and onset asynchrony. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  E. C. Cmm,et al.  on the Recognition of Speech, with , 2008 .

[33]  S. McAdams Segregation of concurrent sounds. I: Effects of frequency modulation coherence. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  J A Bashford,et al.  Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations. , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[36]  B H Repp,et al.  Against a role of “chirp” identification in duplex perception , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  V E Zakharov,et al.  Figure Captions , 1994 .

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

[39]  Albert S. Bregman,et al.  The Auditory Scene. (Book Reviews: Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound.) , 1990 .

[40]  C J Darwin,et al.  Simultaneous grouping and auditory continuity , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[41]  R M Warren,et al.  Binaural release from temporal induction , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Jessica M. Foxton,et al.  Effects of attention and unilateral neglect on auditory stream segregation. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.