Effects of simulated reverberation on the use of binaural cues and fundamental-frequency differences for separating concurrent vowels

A computational simulation was used to generate impulse responses between points in a rectangular room and two points on opposite sides of a spherical “head”. Sounds were convolved with the impulse responses to generate stimuli with which to study the effects of reverberation on the ability of listeners to use differences in fundamental frequency (Δ Fos) to separate concurrent vowels. Experiment 1 verified the suitability of the simulation by showing that it produced (i) appropriate percepts of lateralization, (ii) a larger contribution to lateralization from interaural differences in timing than level, and (iii) no effects of reverberation on lateralization. Experiments 2–5 measured masked identification thresholds for synthetic harmonic “target” vowels in the presence of masking sounds. In Experiment 2, listeners identified targets against pink-noise maskers. The experiment established a spatial geometry and a degree of reverberation for which listeners did not benefit from binaural cues arising from the spatial geometry of the sources. Experiment 3 demonstrated that the same arrangement did not undermine the ability to use Δ Fos to separate targets from vowel-like maskers when both had static Fo contours, but did prevent listeners from using Δ Fos carried on coherently changing Fo contours. Experiment 4 showed that a modulation width of ±1.45% was sufficient to reduce the benefits of Δ Fos, but that the benefits were not eliminated until the width of modulation exceeded the Δ Fo. It is argued that these results are compatible with existing models of the ability to use Δ Fos to separate concurrent vowels and that reverberation undermines the ability when the Fos are changing by diffusing the periodicities of the competing sources. Finally, Experiment 5 demonstrated that reverberation had no effect on the ability to separate a modulated vowel from pink noise. Thus, reverberation may have its detrimental effects in these experiments by diffusing the periodicity of the masking sounds rather than the targets. Overall, the experiments demonstrate that Δ Fos can be more robust cues for separating concurrent sounds than binaural cues. The relevance of these results to the perception of natural continuous speech is discussed.

[1]  R. Carlyon,et al.  The psychophysics of concurrent sound segregation. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

[3]  R Meddis,et al.  Modeling the identification of concurrent vowels with different fundamental frequencies. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  L. Demany,et al.  The effect of vibrato on the recognition of masked vowels , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  J. Culling,et al.  Perceptual and computational separation of simultaneous vowels: cues arising from low-frequency beating. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  L. A. Jeffress,et al.  Localization of Sound from Single and Paired Sources , 1955 .

[7]  Q. Summerfield,et al.  Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: vowels with different fundamental frequencies. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Dennis H. Klatt,et al.  Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer , 1980 .

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

[10]  P. Peterson Simulating the response of multiple microphones to a single acoustic source in a reverberant room. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

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

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

[14]  Q Summerfield,et al.  Perception of concurrent vowels: effects of harmonic misalignment and pitch-period asynchrony. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Alain de Cheveigné,et al.  Separation of concurrent harmonic sounds: Fundamental frequency estimation and a time-domain cancell , 1993 .

[16]  Earl D. Schubert,et al.  Some Aspects of Binaural Signal Selection , 1962 .

[17]  Ray Meddis,et al.  The Role of Binaural and Fundamental Frequency Difference cues in the Identification of Concurrently Presented Vowels , 1994 .

[18]  Clive A. Greated,et al.  The Musician's Guide to Acoustics , 1987 .

[19]  Earl D. Schubert,et al.  Some Preliminary Experiments on Binaural Time Delay and Intelligibility , 1956 .

[20]  F. Wightman,et al.  The dominant role of low-frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Gerard G. Harris,et al.  Binaural Interactions of Impulsive Stimuli and Pure Tones , 1959 .

[22]  A. Mills Lateralization of High‐Frequency Tones , 1960 .

[23]  S. G. Nooteboom,et al.  Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices , 1982 .

[24]  R. Carlyon,et al.  Discriminating between coherent and incoherent frequency modulation of complex tones. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  T W Tillman,et al.  Release from multiple maskers: effects of interaural time disparities. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  D. M. Green,et al.  Lateralization of filtered clicks. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  F L Wightman,et al.  Headphone simulation of free-field listening. I: Stimulus synthesis. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Nathaniel I. Durlach,et al.  Chapter 11 – MODELS OF BINAURAL INTERACTION , 1978 .

[29]  R. Plomp The Role of Modulation in Hearing , 1983 .

[30]  Philip Lieberman,et al.  Intonation, Perception, And Language , 1967 .

[31]  U. Tilmann Zwicker,et al.  Auditory recognition of diotic and dichotic vowel pairs , 1984, Speech Commun..

[32]  D. W. Batteau,et al.  The role of the pinna in human localization , 1967, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[33]  Quentin Summerfield Roles of Harmonicity and Coherent Frequency Modulation in Auditory Grouping. , 1992 .

[34]  J. Culling,et al.  Auditory segregation of competing voices: absence of effects of FM or AM coherence. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[35]  J. Denis McKeown Perception of concurrent vowels: The effect of varying their relative level , 1992, Speech Commun..

[36]  L. Rayleigh,et al.  The theory of sound , 1894 .

[37]  Michaël Titus Maria Scheffers,et al.  Sifting vowels. Auditory pitch analysis and sound segregation. , 1983 .

[38]  R J Stubbs,et al.  Effects of signal-to-noise ratio, signal periodicity, and degree of hearing impairment on the performance of voice-separation algorithms. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  T. W. Parsons Separation of speech from interfering speech by means of harmonic selection , 1976 .

[40]  Peter Ladefoged,et al.  On the Fusion of Sounds Reaching Different Sense Organs , 1957 .

[41]  R. B. Gardner,et al.  Perceptual grouping of formants with static and dynamic differences in fundamental frequency , 1989 .

[42]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  Image method for efficiently simulating small‐room acoustics , 1976 .

[43]  John F. Culling,et al.  Periodicity of maskers not targets determines ease of perceptual segregation using differences in fundamental frequency , 1992 .

[44]  A. Bregman,et al.  The perceptual segregation of simultaneous auditory signals: Pulse train segregation and vowel segregation , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[45]  Wm Wil Wagenaars Localization of Sound in a Room with Reflecting Walls , 1989 .

[46]  A.R.D. Thornton,et al.  Foundations of Modern Auditory Theory , 1970 .

[47]  Hans Wallach,et al.  The precedence effect in sound localization. , 1949, The American journal of psychology.

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

[49]  A. R. Palmer,et al.  Binaural masking level difference effects in single units of the guinea pig inferior colliculus , 1991, Hearing Research.

[50]  R Meddis,et al.  The role of interaural time difference and fundamental frequency difference in the identification of concurrent vowel pairs. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  F. Wightman,et al.  A model of head-related transfer functions based on principal components analysis and minimum-phase reconstruction. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  T R Letowski,et al.  Vowel confusions of hearing-impaired listeners under reverberant and nonreverberant conditions. , 1985, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[54]  G. F. Kuhn Model for the interaural time differences in the azimuthal plane , 1977 .

[55]  C. Darwin,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a Human Experimental Psychology Perceptual Grouping of Speech Components Differing in Fundamental Frequency and Onset-time Perceptual Grouping of Speech Components Differing in Fundamental Frequency and Onset-time , 2022 .

[56]  L. Rayleigh,et al.  XII. On our perception of sound direction , 1907 .

[57]  L H Carney,et al.  Effects of interaural time delays of noise stimuli on low-frequency cells in the cat's inferior colliculus. III. Evidence for cross-correlation. , 1987, Journal of neurophysiology.

[58]  John F. Culling,et al.  Speech perception seen through the ear , 1989, Speech Commun..

[59]  T W Tillman,et al.  Effects of interaural time delays on masking by two competing signals. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[61]  Nathaniel I. Durlach,et al.  On the Externalization of Auditory Images , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[62]  T W Tillman,et al.  Release of masking for speech through interaural time delay. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.