Literature DB >> 21973362

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

Valeriy Shafiro1, Stanley Sheft, Robert Risley.   

Abstract

Perception of interrupted speech and the influence of speech materials and memory load were investigated using one or two concurrent square-wave gating functions. Sentences (Experiment 1) and random one-, three-, and five-word sequences (Experiment 2) were interrupted using either a primary gating rate alone (0.5-24 Hz) or a combined primary and faster secondary rate. The secondary rate interrupted only speech left intact after primary gating, reducing the original speech to 25%. In both experiments, intelligibility increased with primary rate, but varied with memory load and speech material (highest for sentences, lowest for five-word sequences). With dual-rate gating of sentences, intelligibility with fast secondary rates was superior to that with single rates and a 25% duty cycle, approaching that of single rates with a 50% duty cycle for some low and high rates. For dual-rate gating of words, the positive effect of fast secondary gating was smaller than for sentences, and the advantage of sentences over word-sequences was not obtained in many dual-rate conditions. These findings suggest that integration of interrupted speech fragments after gating depends on the duration of the gated speech interval and that sufficiently robust acoustic-phonetic word cues are needed to access higher-level contextual sentence information.
© 2011 Acoustical Society of America

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21973362      PMCID: PMC3206910          DOI: 10.1121/1.3631629

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


  40 in total

1.  The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: individual variability in the use of sentence context.

Authors:  K W Grant; P F Seitz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-02       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.  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

5.  Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech.

Authors:  G L Powers; C Speaks
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds.

Authors:  R M Warren
Journal:  Science       Date:  1970-01-23       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Influence of pulsed masking on the threshold for spondees.

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

10.  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

View more
  13 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Influences of noise-interruption and information-bearing acoustic changes on understanding simulated electric-acoustic speech.

Authors:  Christian Stilp; Gail Donaldson; Soohee Oh; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Perceptual Organization of Interrupted Speech and Text.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Daniel Fogerty; Kimberly Smith; Stanley Sheft
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 2.297

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.  The importance of processing resolution in "ideal time-frequency segregation" of masked speech and the implications for predicting speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Christopher Conroy; Virginia Best; Todd R Jennings; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Combining partial information from speech and text.

Authors:  Daniel Fogerty; Irraj Iftikhar; Rachel Madorskiy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The influence of environmental sound training on the perception of spectrally degraded speech and environmental sounds.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Brian Gygi; Kim Thien N Ho
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-08-12

10.  The intelligibility of interrupted and temporally altered speech: Effects of context, age, and hearing loss.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Robert Risley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.