Literature DB >> 18177159

Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration.

Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham1, Dali Wang.   

Abstract

In phonemic restoration, intelligibility of interrupted speech is enhanced when noise fills the speech gaps. When the broadband envelope of missing speech amplitude modulates the intervening noise, intelligibility is even better. However, this phenomenon represents a perceptual failure: The amplitude modulation, a noise feature, is misattributed to the speech. Experiments explored whether object formation influences how information in the speech gaps is perceptually allocated. Experiment 1 replicates the finding that intelligibility is enhanced when speech-modulated noise rather than unmodulated noise is presented in the gaps. In Experiment 2, interrupted speech was presented diotically, but intervening noises were presented either diotically or with an interaural time difference leading in the right ear, causing the noises to be perceived to the side of the listener. When speech-modulated noise and speech are perceived from different directions, intelligibility is no longer enhanced by the modulation. However, perceived location has no effect for unmodulated noise, which contains no speech-derived information. Results suggest that enhancing object formation reduces misallocation of acoustic features across objects, and demonstrate that our ability to understand noisy speech depends on a cascade of interacting processes, including glimpsing sensory inputs, grouping sensory inputs into objects, and resolving ambiguity through top-down knowledge.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18177159     DOI: 10.1121/1.2804701

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


  26 in total

1.  Phonemic restoration effect reversed in a reverberant room.

Authors:  Nirmal Kumar Srinivasan; Pavel Zahorik
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Feature assignment in perception of auditory figure.

Authors:  Melissa K Gregg; Arthur G Samuel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Object-based auditory and visual attention.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-04-07       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  Localization interference between components in an auditory scene.

Authors:  Adrian K C Lee; Ade Deane-Pratt; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Situational influences on rhythmicity in speech, music, and their interaction.

Authors:  Sarah Hawkins
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Top-down or bottom up: decreased stimulus salience increases responses to predictable stimuli of auditory thalamic neurons.

Authors:  Srinivasa P Kommajosyula; Rui Cai; Edward Bartlett; Donald M Caspary
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2019-04-21       Impact factor: 5.182

7.  Glimpsing speech interrupted by speech-modulated noise.

Authors:  Rachel E Miller; Bobby E Gibbs; Daniel Fogerty
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Age effects on perceptual organization of speech: Contributions of glimpsing, phonemic restoration, and speech segregation.

Authors:  William J Bologna; Kenneth I Vaden; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Importance of envelope modulations during consonants and vowels in segmentally interrupted sentences.

Authors:  Daniel Fogerty
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Multisensory integration enhances phonemic restoration.

Authors:  Antoine J Shahin; Lee M Miller
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.