Literature DB >> 12430820

The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech.

Tanya L Arbogast1, Christine R Mason, Gerald Kidd.   

Abstract

The effect of spatial separation of sources on the masking of a speech signal was investigated for three types of maskers, ranging from energetic to informational. Normal-hearing listeners performed a closed-set speech identification task in the presence of a masker at various signal-to-noise ratios. Stimuli were presented in a quiet sound field. The signal was played from 0 degrees azimuth and a masker was played either from the same location or from 90 degrees to the right. Signals and maskers were derived from sentences that were preprocessed by a modified cochlear-implant simulation program that filtered each sentence into 15 frequency bands, extracted the envelopes from each band, and used these envelopes to modulate pure tones at the center frequencies of the bands. In each trial, the signal was generated by summing together eight randomly selected frequency bands from the preprocessed signal sentence. Three maskers were derived from the preprocessed masker sentences: (1) different-band sentence, which was generated by summing together six randomly selected frequency bands out of the seven bands not present in the signal (resulting in primarily informational masking); (2) different-band noise, which was generated by convolving the different-band sentence with Gaussian noise; and (3) same-band noise, which was generated by summing the same eight bands from the preprocessed masker sentence that were used in the signal sentence and convolving the result with Gaussian noise (resulting in primarily energetic masking). Results revealed that in the different-band sentence masker, the effect of spatial separation averaged 18 dB (at 51% correct), while in the different-band and same-band noise maskers the effect was less than 10 dB. These results suggest that, in these conditions, the advantage due to spatial separation of sources is greater for informational masking than for energetic masking.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12430820     DOI: 10.1121/1.1510141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  99 in total

1.  Psychometric functions for informational masking.

Authors:  Robert A Lutfi; Doris J Kistler; Michael R Callahan; Frederic L Wightman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  How visual cues for when to listen aid selective auditory attention.

Authors:  Lenny A Varghese; Erol J Ozmeral; Virginia Best; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-02-11

3.  Masker location uncertainty reveals evidence for suppression of maskers in two-talker contexts.

Authors:  Kachina Allen; David Alais; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham; Simon Carlile
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Spatial cues alone produce inaccurate sound segregation: the effect of interaural time differences.

Authors:  Andrew Schwartz; Josh H McDermott; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Individual differences and age effects in a dichotic informational masking paradigm.

Authors:  Frederic L Wightman; Doris J Kistler; Amanda O'Bryan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Stimulus factors influencing spatial release from speech-on-speech masking.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Virginia Best; Nicole Marrone
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Spatial release from masking in children with bilateral cochlear implants and with normal hearing: Effect of target-interferer similarity.

Authors:  Sara M Misurelli; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 8.  Development of the auditory system.

Authors:  Ruth Litovsky
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2015

9.  Spatial release from masking in normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners as a function of the temporal overlap of competing talkers.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene modulates the influence of informational masking on speech recognition.

Authors:  Zilong Xie; W Todd Maddox; Valerie S Knopik; John E McGeary; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.