Literature DB >> 14587615

Perceptual segregation of competing speech sounds: the role of spatial location.

Ward R Drennan1, Stuart Gatehouse, Catherine Lever.   

Abstract

Culling and Summerfield [J. Acoust Soc. Am. 92, 785-797 (1995)] showed that listeners could not use ongoing interaural time differences (ITDs) to achieve source segregation. The present experiments tested a free-field analog of their experiment. The stimuli consisted of narrow bands of noise, pairs of which represented the first and second formants of the whispered vowels "ar," "ee," "er," and "oo." A target noise-band pair (vowel) was presented at various angles on the listeners' left while a complementary distracter was presented on the listeners' right. Listeners correctly identified the target vowel in the free-field well above chance. Performance remained well above chance in headphone experiments that retained spatial cues but eliminated reverberations and head movements. The full range of cues that normally determine perceived spatial location provided sufficient information for segregation. Further experiments, which systematically evaluated the contribution of these cues in isolation and in combination, showed that some listeners, following training, exhibited the ability to segregate based on ongoing ITDs alone. Substantial individual differences were observed. The results show that listeners can use spatial cues to segregate simultaneous sound sources.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14587615     DOI: 10.1121/1.1609994

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


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Binaural interference in lateralization thresholds for interaural time and level differences.

Authors:  Laurie M Heller; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Binaural interference in the free field.

Authors:  Naomi B H Croghan; D Wesley Grantham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effects of temporal fine structure on the lateralization of speech and on speech understanding in noise.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Jong Ho Won; Vasant K Dasika; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-02-27

5.  Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds.

Authors:  C J Darwin
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 6.237

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.  Schema vs. primitive perceptual grouping: the relative weighting of sequential vs. spatial cues during an auditory grouping task in frogs.

Authors:  Hamilton E Farris; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 1.836

8.  Stuart Gatehouse: a brief life.

Authors:  Michael A Akeroyd
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06

Review 9.  Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Virginia Best
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-10-30

Review 10.  The organization and physiology of the auditory thalamus and its role in processing acoustic features important for speech perception.

Authors:  Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.381

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.