Speech segregation in rooms: effects of reverberation on both target and interferer.

Speech reception thresholds were measured to investigate the influence of a room on speech segregation between a spatially separated target and interferer. The listening tests were realized under headphones. A room simulation allowed selected positioning of the interferer and target, as well as varying the absorption coefficient of the room internal surfaces. The measurements involved target sentences and speech-shaped noise or 2-voice interferers. Four experiments revealed that speech segregation in rooms was not only dependent on the azimuth separation of sound sources, but also on their direct-to-reverberant energy ratio at the listening position. This parameter was varied for interferer and target independently. Speech intelligibility decreased as the direct-to-reverberant ratio of sources was degraded by sound reflections in the room. The influence of the direct-to-reverberant ratio of the interferer was in agreement with binaural unmasking theories, through its effect on interaural coherence. The effect on the target occurred at higher levels of reverberation and was explained by the intrinsic degradation of speech intelligibility in reverberation.

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

[2]  I. Hirsh.  The Influence of Interaural Phase on Interaural Summation and Inhibition , 1948 .

[3]  L. A. Jeffress,et al.  Effect of Varying the Interaural Noise Correlation on the Detectability of Tonal Signals , 1963 .

[4]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[5]  N. I. Durlach,et al.  Binaural signal detection - Equalization and cancellation theory. , 1972 .

[6]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  Image method for efficiently simulating small‐room acoustics , 1976 .

[7]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[8]  B. Franklin.  Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. , 1981 .

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

[10]  B. Moore,et al.  Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  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.

[12]  T. Houtgast,et al.  A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria , 1985 .

[13]  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.

[14]  Arthur H. Benade,et al.  Two‐ear correlation in the statistical sound fields of rooms , 1986 .

[15]  J. S. Bradley.  Predictors of speech intelligibility in rooms. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  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.

[17]  John F. Culling,et al.  Speech perception seen through the ear , 1989, Speech Commun..

[18]  R Plomp,et al.  A clinical test for the assessment of binaural speech perception in noise. , 1990, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[19]  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.

[20]  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.

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

[23]  S McAdams,et al.  Identification of concurrent harmonic and inharmonic vowels: a test of the theory of harmonic cancellation and enhancement. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  John F. Culling.  Signal-processing software for teaching and research in psychoacoustics under UNIX and X-Windows , 1996 .

[25]  J S Bradley,et al.  On the combined effects of signal-to-noise ratio and room acoustics on speech intelligibility. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  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.

[27]  R W Hukin,et al.  Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[29]  Pavel Zahorik,et al.  Direct-to-reverberant energy ratio sensitivity. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  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.

[31]  J. S. Bradley,et al.  On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Chaz Yee Toh,et al.  Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Auditory target detection in reverberation. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  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.

[35]  Michael A Akeroyd.  The across frequency independence of equalization of interaural time delay in the equalization-cancellation model of binaural unmasking. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  W. Hartmann,et al.  The role of reverberation in release from masking due to spatial separation of sources for speech identification , 2005 .

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

[38]  W. Hartmann,et al.  Binaural coherence in rooms , 2005 .

[39]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Precedence-based speech segregation in a virtual auditory environment. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down influences on spatial unmasking , 2005 .

[41]  John F. Culling,et al.  Evidence for a cancellation mechanism in perceptual segregation by differences in fundamental frequency , 2005 .

[42]  Murray Hodgson,et al.  Auralization study of optimum reverberation times for speech intelligibility for normal and hearing-impaired listeners in classrooms with diffuse sound fields. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  R. Beutelmann,et al.  Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Neil L. Aaronson,et al.  Release from speech-on-speech masking by adding a delayed masker at a different location. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.