Literature DB >> 12519029

Hearing speech against spatially separate competing speech versus competing noise.

William Noble1, Stephen Perrett.   

Abstract

Listeners had the task of following a target speech signal heard against two competitors either located at the same spatial position as the target or displaced symmetrically to locations flanking it. When speech was the competitor, there was a significantly higher separation effect (maintained intelligibility with reduced target sound level), as compared with either steady-state or fluctuating noises. Increasing the extent of spatial separation slightly increased the effect, and a substantial contribution of interaural time differences was observed. When same- and opposite-sex voices were used, a hypothesis that the similarity between target and competing speech would explain the role for spatial separation was partly supported. High- and low-pass filtering showed that both parts of an acoustically similar competing signal contribute to the phenomenon. We conclude that, in parsing the auditory array, attention to spatial cues is heightened when the components of the array are confusable on other acoustic grounds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12519029     DOI: 10.3758/bf03194775

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  17 in total

Review 1.  Problems hearing in noise in older adults: a review of spatial processing disorder.

Authors:  Helen Glyde; Louise Hickson; Sharon Cameron; Harvey Dillon
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2011-11-08

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms.

Authors:  Nicole Marrone; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Tuning in the spatial dimension: evidence from a masked speech identification task.

Authors:  Nicole Marrone; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Auditory spatial negative priming: what is remembered of irrelevant sounds and their locations?

Authors:  Susanne Mayr; Malte Möller; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2013-10-12

8.  A cocktail party model of spatial release from masking by both noise and speech interferers.

Authors:  Gary L Jones; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Binaural Glimpses at the Cocktail Party?

Authors:  Andrea Lingner; Benedikt Grothe; Lutz Wiegrebe; Stephan D Ewert
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-07-13

10.  Tonal Language Speakers Are Better Able to Segregate Competing Speech According to Talker Sex Differences.

Authors:  Juan Zhang; Xing Wang; Ning-Yu Wang; Xin Fu; Tian Gan; John J Galvin; Shelby Willis; Kevin Xu; Mathew Thomas; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.