The Role of Binaural and Fundamental Frequency Difference cues in the Identification of Concurrently Presented Vowels

The relative importance of voice pitch and interaural difference cues in facilitating the recognition of both of two concurrently presented synthetic vowels was measured. The interaural difference cues used were an interaural time difference (400 μsec ITD), two magnitudes of interaural level difference (15 dB and infinite ILD), and a combination of ITD and ILD (400 μsec plus 15 dB). The results are analysed separately for those cases where both vowels are identical and those where they are different. When the two vowels are different, a voice pitch difference of one semitone is found to improve the percentage of correct reports of both vowels by 35.8% on average. However, the use of interaural difference cues results in an improvement of 11.5% on average when there is a voice pitch difference of one semitone, but only a non-significant 0.1% when there is no voice pitch difference. When the two vowels are identical, imposition of either a voice pitch difference or binaural difference reduces performance, in a subtractive manner. It is argued that the smaller size of the interaural difference effect is not due to a “ceiling effect” but is characteristic of the relative importance of the two kinds of cues in this type of experiment. The possibility that the improvement due to interaural difference cues may in fact be due to monaural processing is discussed. A control experiment is reported for the ITD condition, which suggests binaural processing does occur for this condition. However, it is not certain whether the improvement in the ILD condition is due to binaural processing or use of the improvement in signal-to-noise ratio for a single vowel at each ear.

[1]  T W Tillman,et al.  Effects of interaural time delays on masking by two competing signals. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  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..

[3]  T W Tillman,et al.  Release of masking for speech through interaural time delay. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  W. Koenig,et al.  Subjective Effects in Binaural Hearing , 1950 .

[5]  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 .

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

[7]  U. Tilmann Zwicker,et al.  Auditory recognition of diotic and dichotic vowel pairs , 1984, Speech Commun..

[8]  C. Darwin,et al.  Grouping in pitch perception: effects of onset asynchrony and ear of presentation of a mistuned component. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  W. K. Taylor,et al.  Some Further Experiments upon the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears , 1954 .

[10]  L. Rabiner,et al.  Binaural release from masking for speech and gain in intelligibility. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  D. Broadbent The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  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.

[14]  S. Gelfand,et al.  Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: effects of aging and hearing loss. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Donald E. Broadbent,et al.  Miscellanea: A Note on Binaural Fusion , 1955 .

[16]  Dennis H. Klatt,et al.  Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer , 1980 .

[17]  J. L. Goldstein,et al.  The Central Origin of the Pitch of Complex Tones: Evidence from Musical Interval Recognition , 1972 .

[18]  R Meddis,et al.  The role of interaural time difference and fundamental frequency difference in the identification of concurrent vowel pairs. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[20]  J. Raatgever On the binaural processing of stimuli with different interaural phase relations , 1980 .

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

[22]  T W Tillman,et al.  Release from multiple maskers: effects of interaural time disparities. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  R Meddis,et al.  Modeling the identification of concurrent vowels with different fundamental frequencies. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  J. C. R. Licklider,et al.  The Influence of Interaural Phase Relations upon the Masking of Speech by White Noise , 1948 .

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

[26]  Peter Ladefoged,et al.  On the Fusion of Sounds Reaching Different Sense Organs , 1957 .

[27]  J. Cutting Auditory and linguistic processes in speech perception: inferences from six fusions in dichotic listening. , 1976, Psychological review.

[28]  D. C. Howell Statistical Methods for Psychology , 1987 .

[29]  Q Summerfield,et al.  Perception of concurrent vowels: effects of harmonic misalignment and pitch-period asynchrony. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.