Effects of envelope discontinuities on perceptual restoration of amplitude-compressed speech.

An interrupted signal may be perceptually restored and, as a result, perceived as continuous, when the interruptions are filled with loud noise bursts. Additionally, when the signal is speech, an improvement in intelligibility may be observed. The perceived continuity of interrupted tones is reduced when the signal level is ramped down and up before and after the noise burst, respectively--an effect that has been attributed to envelope discontinuities at the tone-noise interface [Bregman, A. S., and Dannenbring, G. L. (1977). Can. J. Psychiatry 31, 151-159]. The hypothesis of the present study was that the perceptual restoration of speech would also be reduced with similar envelope discontinuities that may occur in real life due to the release time constants of hearing-aid compression. In an effort to make the conditions more relevant to hearing aids, speech was amplitude-compressed and normal-hearing listeners of varying ages were recruited. Envelope amplitude ramps were placed at the onsets/offsets of speech segments of interrupted sentences and the restoration effect was measured in two ways: objectively as the improvement in intelligibility when noise was added in the gaps and subjectively through the perceived continuity measured by subjects' own reporting. Both measures showed a reduction as the ramp duration increased--a trend observed for subjects of all ages and for all ramp configurations. These findings can be attributed to envelope discontinuities, with an additional contribution from reduced speech information due to ramping and temporal masking from loud noise bursts.

[1]  Lloyd F. Elfner,et al.  Continuity Effects with Alternately Sounding Tones , 1959 .

[2]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Multiple phonemic restorations follow the rules for auditory induction , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Andrew Stuart,et al.  Word Recognition in Continuous and Interrupted Broadband Noise by Young Normal‐Hearing, Older Normal‐Hearing, and Presbyacusic Listeners , 1996, Ear and hearing.

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

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

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

[7]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Speech perception and phonemic restorations , 1971 .

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

[9]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  Peter F. Assmann,et al.  The Perception of Speech Under Adverse Conditions , 2004 .

[12]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Earl D. Schubert,et al.  Addition to Cherry's Findings on Switching Speech between the Two Ears , 1955 .

[14]  N. Hopkinson.  Combined Effects of Interruption and Interaural Alternation on Speech Intelligibility , 1967, Language and speech.

[15]  A. Samuel.  Phonemic restoration: insights from a new methodology. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  Pamela E Souza,et al.  Effects of Compression on Speech Acoustics, Intelligibility, and Sound Quality , 2002, Trends in amplification.

[17]  E. J. Kreul.  Speech Intelligibility for Interaural Alternated Speech With and Without Intervening Noise for Words and Nonsense , 1971, Language and speech.

[18]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Illusory continuity of interrupted speech: speech rate determines durational limits. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  A S Bregman,et al.  Auditory continuity and amplitude edges. , 1977, Canadian journal of psychology.

[20]  T. Houtgast.  Psychophysical evidence for lateral inhibition in hearing. , 1972, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  W. Thurlow,et al.  An auditory figure-ground effect. , 1957, The American journal of psychology.

[22]  D D Dirks,et al.  Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  G L Dannenbring,et al.  Perceived auditory continuity with alternately rising and falling frequency transitions. , 1976, Canadian journal of psychology.

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

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

[26]  Roger Leslie Wiley.  Speech communication using the strongly voiced components only , 1968 .

[27]  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.

[28]  Brent Edwards,et al.  Hearing Aids and Hearing Impairment , 2004 .

[29]  D. Dirks,et al.  Effect of forward and backward masking on speech intelligibility. , 1970, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  COLIN CHERRY,et al.  Speech Communication in Very Noisy Environments , 1967, Nature.

[31]  A. Samuel.  Does lexical information influence the perceptual restoration of phonemes , 1996 .

[32]  B C Moore,et al.  Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids. , 1985, British journal of audiology.

[33]  D. A. Nelson,et al.  Auditory time constants for off-frequency forward masking in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[34]  W M Rabinowitz,et al.  Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Antonio Ulloa,et al.  Investigating the Neural Basis of the Auditory Continuity Illusion , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  A. Huggins.  Distortion of the Temporal Pattern of Speech: Interruption and Alternation , 1964 .

[37]  H. Levitt,et al.  Age-related decrement in hearing for speech. Sampling and longitudinal studies. , 1976, Journal of gerontology.

[38]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Spoken Language Comprehension in Older Adults: Interactions between Sensory and Cognitive Change in Normal Aging , 2001 .

[39]  Martin Hansen.  Effects of Multi-Channel Compression Time Constants on Subjectively Perceived Sound Quality and Speech Intelligibility , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[40]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Word onset gating and linguistic context in spoken word recognition by young and elderly adults. , 1991, Journal of gerontology.

[41]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  R M Warren,et al.  Perceptual restoration of obliterated sounds. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[43]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[45]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  A schema-based model for phonemic restoration , 2005, Speech Commun..

[46]  G. Henning,et al.  Forward and backward masking with brief impulsive stimuli , 1999, Hearing Research.

[47]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Perceptual synthesis of deleted phonemes , 1979 .

[48]  T. R. Barrett,et al.  Age-related facilitation in recall following semantic processing. , 1981, Journal of gerontology.

[49]  Brent Edwards,et al.  Effects of amplitude ramps on phonemic restoration of compressed speech with normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners , 2007 .

[50]  Dianne J. Van Tasell,et al.  Hearing Loss, Speech, and Hearing Aids , 1993 .

[51]  J. M. Ackroff,et al.  Auditory Induction: Perceptual Synthesis of Absent Sounds , 1972, Science.

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

[53]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Phonemic restoration in a sentence context: Evidence from early and late ERP effects , 2006, Brain Research.

[54]  F K Kuk.  Theoretical and Practical Considerations in Compression Hearing Aids , 1996, Trends in amplification.

[55]  B H Repp,et al.  Perceptual restoration of a “missing” speech sound: Auditory induction or illusion? , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.