Effect of target-masker similarity on across-ear interference in a dichotic cocktail-party listening task.

Similarity between the target and masking voices is known to have a strong influence on performance in monaural and binaural selective attention tasks, but little is known about the role it might play in dichotic listening tasks with a target signal and one masking voice in the one ear and a second independent masking voice in the opposite ear. This experiment examined performance in a dichotic listening task with a target talker in one ear and same-talker, same-sex, or different-sex maskers in both the target and the unattended ears. The results indicate that listeners were most susceptible to across-ear interference with a different-sex within-ear masker and least susceptible with a same-talker within-ear masker, suggesting that the amount of across-ear interference cannot be predicted from the difficulty of selectively attending to the within-ear masking voice. The results also show that the amount of across-ear interference consistently increases when the across-ear masking voice is more similar to the target speech than the within-ear masking voice is, but that no corresponding decline in across-ear interference occurs when the across-ear voice is less similar to the target than the within-ear voice. These results are consistent with an "integrated strategy" model of speech perception where the listener chooses a segregation strategy based on the characteristics of the masker present in the target ear and the amount of across-ear interference is determined by the extent to which this strategy can also effectively be used to suppress the masker in the unattended ear.

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

[2]  D S Brungart Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  E. Carterette,et al.  Some Factors Affecting Multi‐Channel Listening , 1954 .

[4]  A. Bronkhorst,et al.  Multichannel speech intelligibility and talker recognition using monaural, binaural, and three-dimensional auditory presentation. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  W. Johnston,et al.  Flexibility and capacity demands of attention , 1978 .

[6]  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.

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

[8]  N. Moray Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions , 1959 .

[9]  N. Cowan,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: attention and memory in the classic selective listening procedure of Cherry (1953). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Within-ear and across-ear interference in a cocktail-party listening task. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Doris J Kistler,et al.  Informational masking of speech in children: effects of ipsilateral and contralateral distracters. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  A. Treisman THE EFFECT OF IRRELEVANT MATERIAL ON THE EFFICIENCY OF SELECTIVE LISTENING. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.

[13]  W. T. Nelson,et al.  A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Informational masking caused by contralateral stimulation. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  A. Treisman VERBAL CUES, LANGUAGE, AND MEANING IN SELECTIVE ATTENTION. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.