Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition.

Three experiments investigated factors that influence the creation of and release from informational masking in speech recognition. The target stimuli were nonsense sentences spoken by a female talker. In experiment 1 the masker was a mixture of three, four, six, or ten female talkers, all reciting similar nonsense sentences. Listeners' recognition performance was measured with both target and masker presented from a front loudspeaker (F-F) or with a masker presented from two loudspeakers, with the right leading the front by 4 ms (F-RF). In the latter condition the target and masker appear to be from different locations. This aids recognition performance for one- and two-talker maskers, but not for noise. As the number of masking talkers increased to ten, the improvement in the F-RF condition diminished, but did not disappear. The second experiment investigated whether hearing a preview (prime) of the target sentence before it was presented in masking improved recognition for the last key word, which was not included in the prime. Marked improvements occurred only for the F-F condition with two-talker masking, not for continuous noise or F-RF two-talker masking. The third experiment found that the benefit of priming in the F-F condition was maintained if the prime sentence was spoken by a different talker or even if it was printed and read silently. These results suggest that informational masking can be overcome by factors that improve listeners' auditory attention toward the target.

[1]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[3]  S. Sheft,et al.  A simulated “cocktail party” with up to three sound sources , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  G. Kidd,et al.  Similarity, uncertainty, and masking in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  K S Helfer,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual perception of clear and conversational speech. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  B C Moore,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  C. Mason,et al.  Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  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.

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

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

[11]  Emily Buss,et al.  Spondee Recognition in a Two-Talker Masker and a Speech-Shaped Noise Masker in Adults and Children , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[12]  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.

[13]  J. Goodman,et al.  Perceptual masking of spondees by combinations of talkers , 1975 .

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

[15]  William Noble,et al.  Hearing speech against spatially separate competing speech versus competing noise , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  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.

[17]  D. Broadbent Listening to one of two synchronous messages. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  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.

[19]  H S Colburn,et al.  Reducing informational masking by sound segregation. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[21]  R A Lutfi,et al.  Nonmonotonicity of informational masking. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  G. Kidd,et al.  Evidence for spatial tuning in informational masking using the probe-signal method. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[24]  R Plomp,et al.  Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  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.

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

[27]  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.

[28]  H S Colburn,et al.  Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment. , 1999, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[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]  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.