Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release

Consonant identification was measured for normal-hearing listeners using nonsense Vowel-Consonant-Vowel (VCV) stimuli embedded in a steady-state or fluctuating noise masker and presented at a fixed, global signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) yielding 50% correct identification for steady noise. Fluctuations in the masker were obtained by applying sinusoidal amplitude modulation to the noise. VCVs and noise were either left intact (unprocessed) or degraded by removing temporal fine structure (TFS) cues within 32 frequency bands with bandwidths chosen to match psychophysical estimates of auditory filter bandwidth. For unprocessed stimuli, masking release (MR) - that is better identification in fluctuating than in steady noise - was observed at both masker frequencies tested (8 and 32 Hz). MR increased monotonically and similarly with the modulation depth m of the noise masker (from m=12.5% to 100%) at both masker modulation frequencies. The effect of masker modulation depth on release was different for reception of place of articulation and reception of voicing and manner. The effect of masker modulation depth on release was also significantly affected when TFS cues were removed. These data provide evidence that listeners "glimpse" into noise valleys where maximum SNR may be as low as -5 dB (m=12.5%), and suggest a specific contribution of TFS cues to the glimpsing process.

[1]  Emily Buss,et al.  Effect of amplitude modulation coherence for masked speech signals filtered into narrow bands. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  S. Bacon,et al.  The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  M. Cooke,et al.  Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  J M Festen,et al.  Limited resolution of spectral contrast and hearing loss for speech in noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[7]  R. Plomp,et al.  The Reception Threshold of Interrupted Speech for Hearing-Impaired Listeners , 1983 .

[8]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Hideki Kawahara,et al.  YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

[13]  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.

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

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

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

[17]  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.

[18]  Frédéric Berthommier,et al.  Effects of envelope expansion on speech recognition , 1999, Hearing Research.

[19]  B C Moore,et al.  Factors affecting thresholds for sinusoidal signals in narrow-band maskers with fluctuating envelopes. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  R. Fay,et al.  Speech Processing in the Auditory System , 2010, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.

[21]  S. Rosen,et al.  Uncomodulated glimpsing in "checkerboard" noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Paul J. Abbas Auditory-nerve fiber responses to tones in a noise masker , 1981, Hearing Research.

[23]  H. Gustafsson,et al.  Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Contribution of frequency modulation to speech recognition in noise. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  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.

[26]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[27]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[28]  Q Summerfield,et al.  The contribution of waveform interactions to the perception of concurrent vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  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.

[30]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[32]  B C Moore,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Emily Buss,et al.  Spectral integration of synchronous and asynchronous cues to consonant identification. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF SPEECH IN FLUCTUATING NOISE , 1993 .

[35]  C D Geisler,et al.  Auditory nerve fiber response to wide-band noise and tone combinations. , 1978, Journal of neurophysiology.

[36]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  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.

[38]  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.

[39]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Erratum: An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 339 (1955)] , 1955 .

[40]  J. Culling,et al.  Perceptual and computational separation of simultaneous vowels: cues arising from low-frequency beating. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[44]  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.

[45]  R. Klinke,et al.  HEARING — Physiological Bases and Psychophysics , 1983, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[46]  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.

[47]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.