Swinging at a Cocktail Party

People often have to listen to someone speak in the presence of competing voices. Much is known about the acoustic cues used to overcome this challenge, but almost nothing is known about the utility of cues derived from experience with particular voices—cues that may be particularly important for older people and others with impaired hearing. Here, we use a version of the coordinate-response-measure procedure to show that people can exploit knowledge of a highly familiar voice (their spouse’s) not only to track it better in the presence of an interfering stranger’s voice, but also, crucially, to ignore it so as to comprehend a stranger’s voice more effectively. Although performance declines with increasing age when the target voice is novel, there is no decline when the target voice belongs to the listener’s spouse. This finding indicates that older listeners can exploit their familiarity with a speaker’s voice to mitigate the effects of sensory and cognitive decline.

[1]  W. Noble,et al.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[2]  Jon Barker,et al.  The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  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.

[4]  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.

[5]  G. Zou Toward using confidence intervals to compare correlations. , 2007, Psychological methods.

[6]  Rochelle S. Newman,et al.  Listen to your mother! The role of talker familiarity in infant streaming , 2004, Cognition.

[7]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. I: Development of test battery. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[9]  Douglas Johnson,et al.  Stream Segregation and Peripheral Channeling , 1991 .

[10]  M. Sommers,et al.  The effects of talker familiarity on spoken word identification in younger and older listeners. , 2000, Psychology and aging.

[11]  Rochelle S. Newman,et al.  The effect of talker familiarity on stream segregation , 2007, J. Phonetics.

[12]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Talker-specific learning in speech perception , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Effect of the orientation of the speaker's head and azimuth of a noise source on the speech reception threshold for sentences , 1980 .

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

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

[16]  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.

[17]  Daniel Reisberg,et al.  On the Perception of Interleaved Melodies , 1995 .

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

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

[20]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.