Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise

Consonant identification was measured for normal-hearing listeners using Vowel-Consonant-Vowel stimuli that were either unprocessed or spectrally degraded to force listeners to use temporal-envelope cues. Stimuli were embedded in a steady state or fluctuating noise masker and presented at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. Fluctuations in the maskers were obtained by applying sinusoidal modulation to: (i) the amplitude of the noise (1st-order SAM masker) or (ii) the modulation depth of a 1st-order SAM noise (2nd-order SAM masker). The frequencies of the amplitude variation fm and the depth variation f'm were systematically varied. Consistent with previous studies, identification scores obtained with unprocessed speech were highest in an 8-Hz, 1st-order SAM masker. Reception of voicing and manner also peaked around fm=8 Hz, while the reception of place of articulation was maximal at a higher frequency (fm=32 Hz). When 2nd-order SAM maskers were used, identification scores and received information for each consonant feature were found to be independent of f'm. They decreased progressively with increasing carrier modulation frequency fm, and ranged between those obtained with the steady state and the 1st-order SAM maskers. Finally, the results obtained with spectrally degraded speech were similar across all types of maskers, although an 8% improvement in the reception of voicing was observed for modulated maskers with fm < 64 Hz compared to the steady-state masker. These data provide additional evidence that listeners take advantage of temporal minima in fluctuating background noises, and suggest that: (i) minima of different durations are required for an optimal reception of the three consonant features and (ii) complex (i.e., 2nd-order) envelope fluctuations in background noise do not degrade speech identification by interfering with speech-envelope processing.

[1]  The role of envelope beat cues in the detection and discrimination of second-order amplitude modulation. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Modulation masking produced by complex tone modulators. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  W. Shofner,et al.  Responses of ventral cochlear nucleus units in the chinchilla to amplitude modulation by low-frequency, two-tone complexes. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Testing the concept of a modulation filter bank: the audibility of component modulation and detection of phase change in three-component modulators. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF SPEECH IN FLUCTUATING NOISE , 1993 .

[6]  B. Moore,et al.  Modulation masking produced by second-order modulators. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[8]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[9]  W A Yost,et al.  Modulation interference in detection and discrimination of amplitude modulation. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  J H Grose,et al.  Comodulation masking release for multicomponent signals. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  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.

[12]  Benjamin Munson,et al.  Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  G. L. Powers,et al.  Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech with and without intervening noise , 1973 .

[15]  B J Kwon,et al.  Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  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.

[17]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  J M Festen Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  D. Grantham,et al.  Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  T. Houtgast,et al.  A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria , 1985 .

[21]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  A. Duquesnoy Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  R. M. Warren Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds , 1970, Science.

[24]  Frédéric Berthommier,et al.  Effects of envelope expansion on speech recognition , 1999, Hearing Research.

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

[26]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[27]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  T. Houtgast Frequency selectivity in amplitude-modulation detection. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[30]  T. Dau,et al.  Spectro-temporal processing in the envelope-frequency domain. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  S. Rosen,et al.  Individual variability in the perception of cues to place contrasts in initial stops , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Louis-Jean Boë,et al.  La parole et son traitement automatique , 1989 .

[34]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  W A Yost,et al.  Modulation detection interference with two-component masker modulators. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  T. Dau,et al.  Characterizing frequency selectivity for envelope fluctuations. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  B. Kollmeier,et al.  Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. I. Detection and masking with narrow-band carriers. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  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.

[39]  S. Rosen,et al.  Uncomodulated glimpsing in "checkerboard" noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  A Rees,et al.  Second-order modulation detection thresholds for pure-tone and narrow-band noise carriers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  A. Bregman Auditory Scene Analysis , 2008 .

[42]  C. Lorenzi,et al.  Second-order temporal modulation transfer functions. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Charles Speaks,et al.  Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  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.

[46]  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.

[47]  B C Moore,et al.  Modulation masking produced by beating modulators. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  B. Moore,et al.  Estimation of the level and phase of the simple distortion tone the modulation domain. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  H. Gustafsson,et al.  Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.