Speech detection in spatial and nonspatial speech maskers.

The effect of perceived spatial differences on masking release was examined using a 4AFC speech detection paradigm. Targets were 20 words produced by a female talker. Maskers were recordings of continuous streams of nonsense sentences spoken by two female talkers and mixed into each of two channels (two talker, and the same masker time reversed). Two masker spatial conditions were employed: "RF" with a 4 ms time lead to the loudspeaker 60 degrees horizontally to the right, and "FR" with the time lead to the front (0 degrees ) loudspeaker. The reference nonspatial "F" masker was presented from the front loudspeaker only. Target presentation was always from the front loudspeaker. In Experiment 1, target detection threshold for both natural and time-reversed spatial maskers was 17-20 dB lower than that for the nonspatial masker, suggesting that significant release from informational masking occurs with spatial speech maskers regardless of masker understandability. In Experiment 2, the effectiveness of the FR and RF maskers was evaluated as the right loudspeaker output was attenuated until the two-source maskers were indistinguishable from the F masker, as measured independently in a discrimination task. Results indicated that spatial release from masking can be observed with barely noticeable target-masker spatial differences.

[1]  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.

[2]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[4]  D. L. Neff,et al.  Effective properties of multicomponent simultaneous maskers under conditions of uncertainty. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

[7]  W. Hartmann,et al.  Localization of sound in rooms, II: The effects of a single reflecting surface. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  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.

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

[10]  R L Freyman,et al.  The influence of broadband noise on the precedence effect. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  E. Hafter,et al.  Binaural interaction in low-frequency stimuli: the inability to trade time and intensity completely. , 1972, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  Emily Buss,et al.  Spondee Recognition in a Two-Talker Masker and a Speech-Shaped Noise Masker in Adults and Children , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Variability and uncertainty in masking by competing speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  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.

[17]  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.

[18]  R. Litovsky,et al.  Sound localization precision under conditions of the precedence effect: effects of azimuth and standard stimuli. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  L. A. Jeffress,et al.  Two-image lateralization of tones and clicks. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  R A Lutfi,et al.  Informational masking by everyday sounds. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  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.

[23]  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.

[24]  D. M. Green,et al.  Masking produced by spectral uncertainty with multicomponent maskers , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  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.

[26]  P M Zurek,et al.  Adjustment and discrimination measurements of the precedence effect. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  S. Sheft,et al.  A simulated “cocktail party” with up to three sound sources , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  C. Mason,et al.  Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  J. B. Chaiklin The Relation Among Three Selected Auditory Speech Thresholds , 1959 .

[31]  Robert A Lutfi,et al.  Psychometric functions for informational masking. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[33]  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.

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

[35]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Informational masking and musical training. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  C. Mason,et al.  Binaural advantage for sound pattern identification. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[38]  D L Neff,et al.  Individual differences in simultaneous masking with random-frequency, multicomponent maskers. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  H. Davis,et al.  A statistical study of auditory tests in relation to the fenestration operation , 1948, The Laryngoscope.

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