Literature DB >> 19603883

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

Emily Buss1, Lisa N Whittle, John H Grose, Joseph W Hall.   

Abstract

For normal-hearing listeners, masked speech recognition can improve with the introduction of masker amplitude modulation. The present experiments tested the hypothesis that this masking release is due in part to an interaction between the temporal distribution of cues necessary to perform the task and the probability of those cues temporally coinciding with masker modulation minima. Stimuli were monosyllabic words masked by speech-shaped noise, and masker modulation was introduced via multiplication with a raised sinusoid of 2.5-40 Hz. Tasks included detection, three-alternative forced-choice identification, and open-set identification. Overall, there was more masking release associated with the closed than the open-set tasks. The best rate of modulation also differed as a function of task; whereas low modulation rates were associated with best performance for the detection and three-alternative identification tasks, performance improved with modulation rate in the open-set task. This task-by-rate interaction was also observed when amplitude-modulated speech was presented in a steady masker, and for low- and high-pass filtered speech presented in modulated noise. These results were interpreted as showing that the optimal rate of amplitude modulation depends on the temporal distribution of speech cues and the information required to perform a particular task.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19603883      PMCID: PMC2723900          DOI: 10.1121/1.3129506

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


  49 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability.

Authors:  D N Kalikow; K N Stevens; L L Elliott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Influence of pulsed masking on spondee words.

Authors:  D D Dirks; D R Bower
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effect of forward and backward masking on speech intelligibility.

Authors:  D D Dirks; D Bower
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1970-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Effect of pulsed masking on selected speech materials.

Authors:  D D Dirks; R H Wilson; D R Bower
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1969-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  A frequency importance function for continuous discourse.

Authors:  G A Studebaker; C V Pavlovic; R L Sherbecoe
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech with and without intervening noise.

Authors:  G L Powers; J C Wilcox
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  15 in total

1.  Perception of interrupted speech: effects of dual-rate gating on the intelligibility of words and sentences.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Robert Risley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Asynchronous glimpsing of speech: spread of masking and task set-size.

Authors:  Erol J Ozmeral; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio.

Authors:  Joshua G W Bernstein; Douglas S Brungart
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effects of age and hearing loss on the intelligibility of interrupted speech.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Robert Risley; Brian Gygi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Modulation masking and glimpsing of natural and vocoded speech during single-talker modulated noise: Effect of the modulation spectrum.

Authors:  Daniel Fogerty; Jiaqian Xu; Bobby E Gibbs
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Explaining intelligibility in speech-modulated maskers using acoustic glimpse analysis.

Authors:  Bobby E Gibbs; Daniel Fogerty
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression.

Authors:  John H Grose; Silvana Griz; Fernando A Pacífico; Karina P Advíncula; Denise C Menezes
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker.

Authors:  Joshua G W Bernstein; Van Summers; Nandini Iyer; Douglas S Brungart
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Melanie J Gregan; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Development of speech glimpsing in synchronously and asynchronously modulated noise.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss; John H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.