Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio.

Normal-hearing listeners receive less benefit from momentary dips in the level of a fluctuating masker for speech processed to degrade spectral detail or temporal fine structure (TFS) than for unprocessed speech. This has been interpreted as evidence that the magnitude of the fluctuating-masker benefit (FMB) reflects the ability to resolve spectral detail and TFS. However, the FMB for degraded speech is typically measured at a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to yield performance similar to normal speech for the baseline (stationary-noise) condition. Because the FMB decreases with increasing SNR, this SNR difference might account for the reduction in FMB for degraded speech. In this study, the FMB for unprocessed and processed (TFS-removed or spectrally smeared) speech was measured in a paradigm that adjusts word-set size, rather than SNR, to equate stationary-noise performance across processing conditions. Compared at the same SNR and percent-correct level (but with different set sizes), processed and unprocessed stimuli yielded a similar FMB for four different fluctuating maskers (speech-modulated noise, one opposite-gender interfering talker, two same-gender interfering talkers, and 16-Hz interrupted noise). These results suggest that, for these maskers, spectral or TFS distortions do not directly impair the ability to benefit from momentary dips in masker level.

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

[2]  P F Seitz,et al.  The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: individual variability in the use of sentence context. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  S. Bacon,et al.  The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[4]  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.

[5]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Emily Buss,et al.  Masking release for words in amplitude-modulated noise as a function of modulation rate and task. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  B C Moore,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  Nandini Iyer,et al.  Effects of target-masker contextual similarity on the multimasker penalty in a three-talker diotic listening task. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[13]  Louis D Braida,et al.  Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  K. D. Kryter,et al.  ARTICULATION-TESTING METHODS: CONSONANTAL DIFFERENTIATION WITH A CLOSED-RESPONSE SET. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Laurent Demany,et al.  Consequences of cochlear damage for the detection of interaural phase differences. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  T W Tillman,et al.  Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. , 1970, Archives of otolaryngology.

[18]  S P Bacon,et al.  Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  Thomas Baer,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing‐impaired and normally hearing people , 1997 .

[20]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The importance of temporal fine structure information in speech at different spectral regions for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Emily Buss,et al.  Temporal Fine-Structure Cues to Speech and Pure Tone Modulation in Observers with Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[22]  Dan Gnansia,et al.  Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release , 2008, Hearing Research.

[23]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[24]  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.

[25]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[26]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The contribution of temporal fine structure to the intelligibility of speech in steady and modulated noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  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.

[28]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Moderate cochlear hearing loss leads to a reduced ability to use temporal fine structure information. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  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.

[31]  B C Moore,et al.  Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Joshua G. W. Bernstein,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

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

[36]  D A Nelson,et al.  A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  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.

[38]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Spatial release from masking with noise-vocoded speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Frequency discrimination of complex tones by hearing-impaired subjects: Evidence for loss of ability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Hearing Research.

[41]  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.

[42]  B. Moore,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise , 1993 .

[43]  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.

[44]  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.

[45]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine structure degradation on speech masking release. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  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.

[47]  John H Grose,et al.  Age Effects in Temporal Envelope Processing: Speech Unmasking and Auditory Steady State Responses , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[48]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  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.

[50]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  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.