Masker location uncertainty reveals evidence for suppression of maskers in two-talker contexts.

In many natural settings, spatial release from masking aids speech intelligibility, especially when there are competing talkers. This paper describes a series of three experiments that investigate the role of prior knowledge of masker location on phoneme identification and spatial release from masking. In contrast to previous work, these experiments use initial stop-consonant identification as a test of target intelligibility to ensure that listeners had little time to switch the focus of spatial attention during the task. The first experiment shows that target phoneme identification was worse when a masker played from an unexpected location (increasing the consonant identification threshold by 2.6 dB) compared to when an energetically very similar and symmetrically located masker came from an expected location. In the second and third experiments, target phoneme identification was worse (increasing target threshold levels by 2.0 and 2.6 dB, respectively) when the target was played unexpectedly on the side from which the masker was expected compared to when the target came from an unexpected, symmetrical location in the hemifield opposite the expected location of the masker. These results support the idea that listeners modulate spatial attention by both focusing resources on the expected target location and withdrawing attentional resources from expected locations of interfering sources.

[1]  Mark A. Ericson,et al.  Factors That Influence Intelligibility in Multitalker Speech Displays , 2004 .

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

[3]  S Arlinger,et al.  Speech Recognition in Background Noise: Monaural versus Binaural Listening Conditions in Normal-hearing Patients , 2001, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  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.

[5]  P J Bailey,et al.  Auditory spatial attention using interaural time differences. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  Liang Li,et al.  The effect of perceived spatial separation on informational masking of Chinese speech , 2005, Hearing Research.

[8]  E. Knudsen Fundamental components of attention. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[9]  D. Alais,et al.  Speech intelligibility reduces over distance from an attended location: Evidence for an auditory spatial gradient of attention , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[10]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[12]  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.

[13]  G. Rhodes Auditory attention and the representation of spatial information , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  Seppo P. Ahlfors,et al.  Biasing the brain’s attentional set: I. Cue driven deployments of intersensory selective attention , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  Eric I. Knudsen,et al.  Top-down gain control of the auditory space map by gaze control circuitry in the barn owl , 2006, Nature.

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

[17]  Simon Carlile,et al.  Synchronizing to real events: subjective audiovisual alignment scales with perceived auditory depth and speed of sound. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  C J Darwin,et al.  Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  Mei-Ching Lien,et al.  A multistream model of visual word recognition , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[20]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[21]  Erich Schröger,et al.  ERP INDICATIONS FOR SUSTAINED AND TRANSIENT AUDITORY SPATIAL ATTENTION WITH DIFFERENT LATERALIZATION CUES , 1999 .

[22]  E. Langendijk,et al.  Contribution of spectral cues to human sound localization. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  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.

[24]  Kazuo Ikeda,et al.  The effect of exogenous spatial attention on auditory information processing , 2007, Psychological research.

[25]  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.

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

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

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

[29]  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.

[30]  S. Hillyard,et al.  The gradient of spatial auditory attention in free field: An event-related potential study , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  Charles S. Watson,et al.  Some comments on informational masking , 2005 .

[32]  A. Watson Probability summation over time , 1979, Vision Research.

[33]  Virginia Best,et al.  The role of high frequencies in speech localization. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  R. Zatorre,et al.  Shifting and focusing auditory spatial attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  C S Watson,et al.  Factors in the discrimination of tonal patterns. II. Selective attention and learning under various levels of stimulus uncertainty. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  Cynthia M Connine,et al.  It’s not what you hear but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  A. T. Smith,et al.  Attentional suppression of activity in the human visual cortex , 2000, Neuroreport.

[38]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Informational masking: counteracting the effects of stimulus uncertainty by decreasing target-masker similarity. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[40]  R Näätänen,et al.  Event-related potentials demonstrate a narrow focus of auditory spatial attention. , 1994, Neuroreport.

[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]  Masanao Ebata,et al.  Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem , 2003 .

[43]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking (L) , 2003 .

[44]  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.

[45]  Emily Buss,et al.  Informational masking release in children and adults. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  Speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in young children. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  L. Trainor,et al.  Effects of spatial separation and stimulus probability on the event-related potentials elicited by occasional changes in sound location , 2006, Brain Research.

[48]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[49]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  S. Carlile,et al.  The localisation of spectrally restricted sounds by human listeners , 1999, Hearing Research.

[51]  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.

[52]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  Role of masker predictability in the cocktail party problem. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  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.

[55]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Increases in alpha oscillatory power reflect an active retinotopic mechanism for distracter suppression during sustained visuospatial attention. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[56]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Cocktail party listening in a dynamic multitalker environment , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[57]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Spatial attention to central and peripheral auditory stimuli as indexed by event-related potentials. , 1999, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.