Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention.

Three experiments explored the resistance to simulated reverberation of various cues for selective attention. Listeners decided which of two simultaneous target words belonged to an attended rather than to a simultaneous unattended sentence. Attended and unattended sentences were spatially separated using interaural time differences (ITDs) of 0, +/-45, +/-91 or +/-181 micros. Experiment 1 used sentences resynthesized on a monotone, with sentence pairs having F0 differences of 0, 1, 2, or 4 semitones. Listeners' weak preference for the target word with the same monotonous F0 as the attended sentence was eliminated by reverberation. Experiment 1 also showed that listeners' ability to use ITD differences was seriously impaired by reverberation although some ability remained for the longest ITD tested. In experiment 2 the sentences were spoken with natural prosody, with sentence stress in different places in the attended and unattended sentences. The overall F0 of each sentence was shifted by a constant amount on a log scale to bring the F0 trajectories of the target words either closer together or further apart. These prosodic manipulations were generally more resistant to reverberation than were the ITD differences. In experiment 3, adding a large difference in vocal-tract size (+/- 15%) to the prosodic cues produced a high level of performance which was very resistant to reverberation. The experiments show that the natural prosody and vocal-tract size differences between talkers that were used retain their efficacy in helping selective attention under conditions of reverberation better than do interaural time differences.

[1]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Vowel errors in noise and in reverberation by hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  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.

[3]  P. Assmann,et al.  Ranking the Pitches of Concurrent Vowels , 1998 .

[4]  Jon Driver,et al.  Covert Spatial Orienting in Audition: Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms , 1994 .

[5]  J. Moncur,et al.  Binaural and monaural speech intelligibility in reverberation. , 1967, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  W. Hartmann Localization of sound in rooms. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Peter F. Assmann,et al.  FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY AND THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF COMPETING VOICES , 1999 .

[8]  C. Lorenzi,et al.  Sound localization in noise in normal-hearing listeners. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  A K Nábĕlek,et al.  Identification of vowels in quiet, noise, and reverberation: relationships with age and hearing loss. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Hideki Kawahara,et al.  Concurrent vowel identification. I. Effects of relative amplitude and F0 difference , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Eric Moulines,et al.  Pitch-synchronous waveform processing techniques for text-to-speech synthesis using diphones , 1989, Speech Commun..

[12]  A K Nábĕlek,et al.  Perception of consonants in reverberation by native and non-native listeners. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  A. Gregory,et al.  Listening to Polyphonic Music , 1990 .

[14]  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.

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

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

[17]  Diana C Emanuel,et al.  Spatial Perception of Speech in Various Signal to Noise Ratios , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[18]  J. Bird Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. , 1997 .

[19]  P F Assmann,et al.  Pitches of concurrent vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  W. Hartmann,et al.  Localization of sound in rooms, II: The effects of a single reflecting surface. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[22]  C. Darwin,et al.  Lateralization of a perturbed harmonic: effects of onset asynchrony and mistuning. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  C. Darwin,et al.  Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: within and across-formant grouping by F0. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  John F. Culling,et al.  Effects of simulated reverberation on the use of binaural cues and fundamental-frequency differences for separating concurrent vowels , 1994, Speech Commun..

[25]  R. Gilkey,et al.  Sound localization in noise: the effect of signal-to-noise ratio. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[27]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Monaural and binaural speech perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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