Effects of reverberation and masker fluctuations on binaural unmasking of speech.

In daily life, listeners use two ears to understand speech in situations which typically include reverberation and non-stationary noise. In headphone experiments, the binaural benefit for speech in noise is often expressed as the difference in speech reception threshold between diotic (N(0)S(0)) and dichotic (N(0)S(π)) conditions. This binaural advantage (BA), arising from the use of inter-aural phase differences, is about 5-6 dB in stationary noise, but may be lower in everyday conditions. In the current study, BA was measured in various combinations of noise and artificially created diotic reverberation, for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Speech-intelligibility models were applied to quantify the combined effects. Results showed that in stationary noise, diotic reverberation did not affect BA. BA was reduced in conditions where the masker fluctuated. With additional reverberation, however, it was restored. Results for both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners were accounted for by assuming that binaural unmasking is only effectively realized at low instantaneous speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs). The observed BA was related to the distribution of SNRs resulting from fluctuations, reverberation, and peripheral processing. It appears that masker fluctuations and reverberation, both relevant for everyday communication, interact in their effects on binaural unmasking and need to be considered together.

[1]  R Plomp,et al.  A clinical test for the assessment of binaural speech perception in noise. , 1990, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[2]  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.

[3]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Prediction of binaural speech intelligibility against noise in rooms. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  S. Stephens,et al.  The Input for a Damaged Cochlea-A Brief Review , 1976 .

[5]  R Plomp,et al.  Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Speech segregation in rooms: monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function, I. General room acoustics , 1980 .

[8]  Mark C. Flynn,et al.  Effects of Background Noise and Reverberation on the Aided Speech Perception in Adults with a Severe or Severe-to-profound Hearing Impairment , 2003 .

[9]  K. Helfer,et al.  Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  S. van de Par,et al.  The normalized interaural correlation: accounting for NoS pi thresholds obtained with Gaussian and "low-noise" masking noise. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[12]  L E Humes,et al.  Factors affecting the recognition of reverberant speech by elderly listeners. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[13]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Revision and validation of a binaural model for speech intelligibility in noise , 2011, Hearing Research.

[14]  J. C. R. Licklider,et al.  The Influence of Interaural Phase Relations upon the Masking of Speech by White Noise , 1948 .

[15]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The binaural intelligibility level difference in hearing-impaired listeners: the role of supra-threshold deficits. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  R. Plomp,et al.  Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  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.

[18]  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.

[19]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Binaural masking level difference for speech signals in noise. , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[20]  R. Drullman,et al.  Binaural intelligibility prediction based on the speech transmission index. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  A R Antonelli,et al.  Masking level difference: another tool for the evaluation of peripheral and cortical defects. , 1976, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[22]  I Hochberg,et al.  Binaural and monaural speech discrimination under reverberation. , 1976, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[23]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Effect of noise and reverberation on binaural and monaural word identification by subjects with various audiograms. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  E. C. Cherry Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears , 1953 .

[25]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual's elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[26]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  C Ludvigsen Relations among some psychoacoustic parameters in normal and cochlearly impaired listeners. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: the value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[30]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  I M Noordhoek,et al.  Measuring the threshold for speech reception by adaptive variation of the signal bandwidth. II. Hearing-impaired listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Herman J. M. Steeneken,et al.  A multi-language evaluation of the RASTI method for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria , 1982 .

[33]  R. H. Wilson,et al.  Detection and recognition masking-level differences for the individual CID W-1 spondaic words. , 1982, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[34]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The Influence of Masker Type on the Binaural Intelligibility Level Difference , 2007 .

[35]  T Houtgast,et al.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  J. Blauert Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization , 1983 .

[37]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  B C Moore,et al.  Inter-relationship between different psychoacoustic measures assumed to be related to the cochlear active mechanism. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  S. T. Goverts,et al.  Measuring the effects of reverberation and noise on sentence intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners. , 2010, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[41]  A. Kjellberg,et al.  Effects of reverberation time on the cognitive load in speech communication: theoretical considerations. , 2004, Noise & health.

[42]  Elizabeth D. Hickman,et al.  Effect of age on binaural speech intelligibility in normal hearing adults , 2006, Speech Commun..

[43]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Cochlear Compression: Perceptual Measures and Implications for Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[45]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  T Houtgast,et al.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  R. Plomp A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[48]  A. Duquesnoy Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  K S Helfer,et al.  Aging and the binaural advantage in reverberation and noise. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[50]  H. Gustafsson,et al.  Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise , 1991 .

[51]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU) , 2008, International journal of audiology.