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

A masker can reduce target intelligibility both by interfering with the target's peripheral representation ("energetic masking") and/or by causing more central interference ("informational masking"). Intelligibility generally improves with increasing spatial separation between two sources, an effect known as spatial release from masking (SRM). Here, SRM was measured using two concurrent sine-vocoded talkers. Target and masker were each composed of eight different narrowbands of speech (with little spectral overlap). The broadband target-to-masker energy ratio (TMR) was varied, and response errors were used to assess the relative importance of energetic and informational masking. Performance improved with increasing TMR. SRM occurred at all TMRs; however, the pattern of errors suggests that spatial separation affected performance differently, depending on the dominant type of masking. Detailed error analysis suggests that informational masking occurred due to failures in either across-time linkage of target segments (streaming) or top-down selection of the target. Specifically, differences in the spatial cues in target and masker improved streaming and target selection. In contrast, level differences helped listeners select the target, but had little influence on streaming. These results demonstrate that at least two mechanisms (differentially affected by spatial and level cues) influence informational masking.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

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

[4]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a divided speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

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

[10]  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.

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

[12]  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.

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

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

[15]  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.

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

[18]  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.

[19]  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.

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

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

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

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

[24]  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 .

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

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

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

[28]  C. Darwin Auditory grouping , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  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.

[30]  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.

[31]  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.

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

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

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

[35]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

[41]  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.

[42]  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.

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

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

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

[46]  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.

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

[48]  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.

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

[50]  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.