Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a divided speech identification task.

When listening selectively to one talker in a two-talker environment, performance generally improves with spatial separation of the sources. The current study explores the role of spatial separation in divided listening, when listeners reported both of two simultaneous messages processed to have little spectral overlap (limiting "energetic masking" between the messages). One message was presented at a fixed level, while the other message level varied from equal to 40 dB less than that of the fixed-level message. Results demonstrate that spatial separation of the competing messages improved divided-listening performance. Most errors occurred because listeners failed to report the content of the less-intense talker. Moreover, performance generally improved as the broadband energy ratio of the variable-level to the fixed-level talker increased. The error patterns suggest that spatial separation improves the intelligibility of the less-intense talker by improving the ability to (1) hear portions of the signal that would otherwise be masked, (2) segregate the two talkers properly into separate perceptual streams, and (3) selectively focus attention on the less-intense talker. Spatial configuration did not noticeably affect the ability to report the more-intense talker, suggesting that it was processed differently than the less-intense talker, which was actively attended.

[1]  Steven Greenberg,et al.  UNDERSTANDING SPEECH UNDERSTANDING: TOWARDS A UNIFIED THEORY OF SPEECH PERCEPTION , 1996 .

[2]  N. Moray Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions , 1959 .

[3]  Douglas Brungart,et al.  Informational masking of speech in children: auditory-visual integration. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  D. Somers,et al.  Processing Efficiency of Divided Spatial Attention Mechanisms in Human Visual Cortex , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[7]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking (L) , 2003 .

[8]  E A Lawson,et al.  Decisions concerning the Rejected Channel , 1966, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  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.

[10]  Kristin J. Van Engen,et al.  Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  H S Colburn,et al.  Test of a model of auditory object formation using intensity and interaural time difference discrimination. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  M. Ericson,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  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.

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

[15]  G. Kidd,et al.  Evidence for spatial tuning in informational masking using the probe-signal method. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Felix Wichmann,et al.  The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[18]  A. Bonnel,et al.  Divided attention between simultaneous auditory and visual signals , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Localizing nearby sound sources in a classroom: binaural room impulse responses. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  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.

[21]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Within-ear and across-ear interference in a dichotic cocktail party listening task: effects of masker uncertainty. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  D S Brungart Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  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.

[24]  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.

[25]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down influences on spatial unmasking , 2005 .

[26]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Across-ear interference from parametrically degraded synthetic speech signals in a dichotic cocktail-party listening task. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Diana Deutsch,et al.  Grouping Mechanisms in Music , 1999 .

[28]  R A Lutfi A model of auditory pattern analysis based on component-relative-entropy. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  John F Culling,et al.  The spatial unmasking of speech: evidence for better-ear listening. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[31]  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.

[32]  Lisa Stifelman The cocktail party e ect in auditory interfaces: A study of simultaneous presentation , 1994 .

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

[34]  C. Darwin,et al.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  N. Cowan Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework , 1995 .

[36]  D. Broadbent The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[37]  T Sone,et al.  Improvement of hearing ability by directional information. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  J. Culling,et al.  The role of head-related time and level cues in the unmasking of speech in noise and competing speech , 2005 .

[39]  W. T. Nelson,et al.  A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  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.

[42]  Virginia Best,et al.  Spatial unmasking of birdsong in human listeners: energetic and informational factors. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

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

[46]  N. I. Durlach,et al.  Binaural signal detection - Equalization and cancellation theory. , 1972 .

[47]  N. Durlach,et al.  TIME-INTENSITY RELATIONS IN BINAURAL UNMASKING. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[49]  Doris J Kistler,et al.  Informational masking of speech in children: effects of ipsilateral and contralateral distracters. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  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.

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

[52]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[53]  J. D. Johnson,et al.  Attention and Memory , 1998 .

[54]  John C. Webster,et al.  Responding to One of Two Simultaneous Messages , 1954 .

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

[56]  Virginia Best,et al.  Binaural interference and auditory grouping. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  John F Culling,et al.  The spatial unmasking of speech: evidence for within-channel processing of interaural time delay. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[58]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[59]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[60]  John F Culling,et al.  Speech perception from monaural and binaural information. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[61]  I. Hirsh The Influence of Interaural Phase on Interaural Summation and Inhibition , 1948 .

[62]  J. Culling,et al.  Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[63]  Marie Rivenez,et al.  Processing unattended speech. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[64]  Charles S. Watson,et al.  Some comments on informational masking , 2005 .

[65]  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.

[66]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Auditory objects of attention: the role of interaural time differences. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[67]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Combining energetic and informational masking for speech identification. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[68]  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a selective speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[69]  A. Treisman,et al.  Selective Attention: Perception or Response? , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[70]  R Y Litovsky,et al.  Investigation of the relationship among three common measures of precedence: fusion, localization dominance, and discrimination suppression. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[71]  Uma Balakrishnan,et al.  Spatial And Spectral Factors In Release From Informational Masking In Speech Recognition , 2005 .