The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise.

Spectrally shaped steady noise is commonly used as a masker of speech. The effects of inherent random fluctuations in amplitude of such a noise are typically ignored. Here, the importance of these random fluctuations was assessed by comparing two cases. For one, speech was mixed with steady speech-shaped noise and N-channel tone vocoded, a process referred to as signal-domain mixing (SDM); this preserved the random fluctuations of the noise. For the second, the envelope of speech alone was extracted for each vocoder channel and a constant was added corresponding to the root-mean-square value of the noise envelope for that channel. This is referred to as envelope-domain mixing (EDM); it removed the random fluctuations of the noise. Sinusoidally modulated noise and a single talker were also used as backgrounds, with both SDM and EDM. Speech intelligibility was measured for N = 12, 19, and 30, with the target-to-background ratio fixed at -7 dB. For SDM, performance was best for the speech background and worst for the steady noise. For EDM, this pattern was reversed. Intelligibility with steady noise was consistently very poor for SDM, but near-ceiling for EDM, demonstrating that the random fluctuations in steady noise have a large effect.

[1]  B. Moore,et al.  Relative contribution to speech intelligibility of different envelope modulation rates within the speech dynamic range. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  High-rate envelope information in many channels provides resistance to reduction of speech intelligibility produced by multi-channel fast-acting compression. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Joshua G. W. Bernstein,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The contribution of temporal fine structure to the intelligibility of speech in steady and modulated noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Relative importance of different spectral bands to consonant identification: Relevance for frequency transposition in hearing aids , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[7]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Spectro-Temporal Characteristics of Speech at High Frequencies, and the Potential for Restoration of Audibility to People with Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[8]  B. Moore The Role of Temporal Fine Structure Processing in Pitch Perception, Masking, and Speech Perception for Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired People , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[9]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Moderate cochlear hearing loss leads to a reduced ability to use temporal fine structure information. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Andrew Faulkner,et al.  Perceptual adaptation by normally hearing listeners to a simulated "hole" in hearing. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Martin Cooke,et al.  A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Frédéric Berthommier,et al.  Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise , 2006, Hearing Research.

[19]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Speech masking release in listeners with flat hearing loss: Effects of masker fluctuation rate on identification scores and phonetic feature reception , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[20]  Emily Buss,et al.  Temporal Fine-Structure Cues to Speech and Pure Tone Modulation in Observers with Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[21]  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.

[22]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Discrimination of the fundamental frequency of complex tones with fixed and shifting spectral envelopes by normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects , 2003, Hearing Research.

[23]  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.

[24]  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.

[25]  Kenneth N Stevens,et al.  Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  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.

[27]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[29]  B. Moore,et al.  Vowel identification based on amplitude modulation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  S. Buus,et al.  Discrimination of envelope frequency in one spectral region in the presence of modulation in another. , 1994, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  B C Moore,et al.  Effects of carrier frequency and background noise on the detection of mixed modulation. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  R. Drullman Temporal envelope and fine structure cues for speech intelligibility , 1994 .

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

[34]  J. Culling,et al.  Auditory segregation of competing voices: absence of effects of FM or AM coherence. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[35]  Tom R. Gaunt,et al.  Across-channel Masking of Changes in Modulation Depth for Amplitude- and Frequency-modulated Signals , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[36]  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.

[37]  J H Grose,et al.  Comodulation masking release and auditory grouping. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[39]  S Buus,et al.  Release from masking caused by envelope fluctuations. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[41]  C. Darwin,et al.  Spectral integration based on common amplitude modulation , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  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.

[43]  R. Plomp The Role of Modulation in Hearing , 1983 .