Molecular analysis of individual differences in talker search at the cocktail-party.

A molecular (trial-by-trial) analysis of data from a cocktail-party, target-talker search task was used to test two general classes of explanations accounting for individual differences in listener performance: cue weighting models for which errors are tied to the speech features talkers have in common with the target and internal noise models for which errors are largely independent of these features. The speech of eight different talkers was played simultaneously over eight different loudspeakers surrounding the listener. The locations of the eight talkers varied at random from trial to trial. The listener's task was to identify the location of a target talker with which they had previously been familiarized. An analysis of the response counts to individual talkers showed predominant confusion with one talker sharing the same fundamental frequency and timbre as the target and, secondarily, other talkers sharing the same timbre. The confusions occurred for a roughly constant 31% of all of the trials for all of the listeners. The remaining errors were uniformly distributed across the remaining talkers and responsible for the large individual differences in performances observed. The results are consistent with a model in which largely stimulus-independent factors (internal noise) are responsible for the wide variation in performance across listeners.

[1]  R. Lutfi,et al.  The Listener Effect in Multitalker Speech Segregation and Talker Identification , 2021, Trends in hearing.

[2]  G. Bidelman,et al.  Musicians Show Improved Speech Segregation in Competitive, Multi-Talker Cocktail Party Scenarios , 2020, Frontiers in Psychology.

[3]  W. Yost,et al.  Individual listener differences in azimuthal front-back reversals. , 2019, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Stephanie A. Borrie,et al.  Coping with adversity: Individual differences in the perception of noisy and accented speech , 2018, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[5]  James B. Dewey,et al.  A common microstructure in behavioral hearing thresholds and stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  William A. Yost,et al.  How many images are in an auditory scene? , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  W. Yost Spatial release from masking based on binaural processing for up to six maskers. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Contributions of Sensory Coding and Attentional Control to Individual Differences in Performance in Spatial Auditory Selective Attention Tasks , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[9]  Jayaganesh Swaminathan,et al.  Determining the energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking , 2016, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Anbar Najam,et al.  Judging sound rotation when listeners and sounds rotate: Sound source localization is a multisystem process. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Lynn R. Gilbertson,et al.  Estimates of decision weights and internal noise in the masked discrimination of vowels by young and elderly adults. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  A. Bronkhorst The cocktail-party problem revisited: early processing and selection of multi-talker speech , 2015, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[13]  Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda,et al.  Why do I hear but not understand? Stochastic undersampling as a model of degraded neural encoding of speech , 2014, Front. Neurosci..

[14]  Christopher J. Plack,et al.  Perceptual Consequences of “Hidden” Hearing Loss , 2014, Trends in hearing.

[15]  Joseph W. Hall,et al.  Effects of linguistic experience on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral masker modulation. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Lynn R. Gilbertson,et al.  The information-divergence hypothesis of informational masking. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Terrin N Tamati,et al.  Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report. , 2013, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content. , 2012, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  G. Long,et al.  Stimulus characteristics which lessen the impact of threshold fine structure on estimates of hearing status , 2012, Hearing Research.

[20]  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Spatial Selective Auditory Attention in the Presence of Reverberant Energy: Individual Differences in Normal-Hearing Listeners , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[21]  Jason B. Mattingley,et al.  The role of spatial location in auditory search , 2008, Hearing Research.

[22]  Ching-Ju Liu,et al.  Individual differences in source identification from synthesized impact sounds. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Mark A. Ericson,et al.  Factors That Influence Intelligibility in Multitalker Speech Displays , 2004 .

[24]  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.

[25]  A. Ahumada Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[26]  R A Lutfi,et al.  Nonmonotonicity of informational masking. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  R. Lutfi,et al.  Spectral weights for overall level discrimination in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  F L Wightman,et al.  Headphone simulation of free-field listening. II: Psychophysical validation. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  R H Gilkey,et al.  Models of auditory masking: a molecular psychophysical approach. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[31]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Linguistic Considerations in the Study of Speech Intelligibility , 1959 .

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