Literature DB >> 19173431

Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference.

Andrew J Oxenham1, Andrea M Simonson.   

Abstract

Speech intelligibility was measured for sentences presented in spectrally matched steady noise, single-talker interference, or speech-modulated noise. The stimuli were unfiltered or were low-pass (LP) (1200 Hz cutoff) or high-pass (HP) (1500 Hz cutoff) filtered. The cutoff frequencies were selected to produce equal performance in both LP and HP conditions in steady noise and to limit access to the temporal fine structure of resolved harmonics in the HP conditions. Masking release, or the improvement in performance between the steady noise and single-talker interference, was substantial with no filtering. Under LP and HP filtering, masking release was roughly equal but was much less than in unfiltered conditions. When the average F0 of the interferer was shifted lower than that of the target, similar increases in masking release were observed under LP and HP filtering. Similar LP and HP results were also obtained for the speech-modulated-noise masker. The findings are not consistent with the idea that pitch conveyed by the temporal fine structure of low-order harmonics plays a crucial role in masking release. Instead, any reduction in speech redundancy, or manipulation that increases the target-to-masker ratio necessary for intelligibility to beyond around 0 dB, may result in reduced masking release.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19173431      PMCID: PMC2677273          DOI: 10.1121/1.3021299

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


  42 in total

1.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers.

Authors:  D S Brungart
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference?

Authors:  B J Kwon; C W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Su-Hyun Jin; Arlene Earley Carney; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers.

Authors:  Christopher J Darwin; Douglas S Brungart; Brian D Simpson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Pitch discrimination of diotic and dichotic tone complexes: harmonic resolvability or harmonic number?

Authors:  Joshua G Bernstein; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers.

Authors:  Michael K Qin; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Su-Hyun Jin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Simulations of cochlear implant hearing using filtered harmonic complexes: implications for concurrent sound segregation.

Authors:  John M Deeks; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Spatial release from masking with noise-vocoded speech.

Authors:  Richard L Freyman; Uma Balakrishnan; Karen S Helfer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Interactive effects of low-pass filtering and masking noise on word recognition.

Authors:  T Scott; W B Green; A Stuart
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.664

View more
  58 in total

1.  Revisiting place and temporal theories of pitch.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Acoust Sci Technol       Date:  2013

2.  Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Bomjun J Kwon; Trevor T Perry; Cassie L Wilhelm; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Pitch perception for mixtures of spectrally overlapping harmonic complex tones.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Michael V Keebler; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Relative contribution of off- and on-frequency spectral components of background noise to the masking of unprocessed and vocoded speech.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Psychophysiological analyses demonstrate the importance of neural envelope coding for speech perception in noise.

Authors:  Jayaganesh Swaminathan; Michael G Heinz
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise.

Authors:  Joseph G Desloge; Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Zachary D Perez; Lorraine A Delhorne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Nicole K Manzano; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Masking release for words in amplitude-modulated noise as a function of modulation rate and task.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Lisa N Whittle; John H Grose; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing.

Authors:  Fei Chen; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.