Literature DB >> 25126683

Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech for native and nonnative english speakers.

Lauren Calandruccio1, Ann R Bradlow2, Sumitrajit Dhar3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Masking release for an English sentence-recognition task in the presence of foreign-accented English speech compared with native-accented English speech was reported in Calandruccio et al (2010a). The masking release appeared to increase as the masker intelligibility decreased. However, it could not be ruled out that spectral differences between the speech maskers were influencing the significant differences observed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the current experiment was to minimize spectral differences between speech maskers to determine how various amounts of linguistic information within competing speech Affiliationect masking release. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A mixed-model design with within-subject (four two-talker speech maskers) and between-subject (listener group) factors was conducted. Speech maskers included native-accented English speech and high-intelligibility, moderate-intelligibility, and low-intelligibility Mandarin-accented English. Normalizing the long-term average speech spectra of the maskers to each other minimized spectral differences between the masker conditions. STUDY SAMPLE: Three listener groups were tested, including monolingual English speakers with normal hearing, nonnative English speakers with normal hearing, and monolingual English speakers with hearing loss. The nonnative English speakers were from various native language backgrounds, not including Mandarin (or any other Chinese dialect). Listeners with hearing loss had symmetric mild sloping to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Listeners were asked to repeat back sentences that were presented in the presence of four different two-talker speech maskers. Responses were scored based on the key words within the sentences (100 key words per masker condition). A mixed-model regression analysis was used to analyze the difference in performance scores between the masker conditions and listener groups.
RESULTS: Monolingual English speakers with normal hearing benefited when the competing speech signal was foreign accented compared with native accented, allowing for improved speech recognition. Various levels of intelligibility across the foreign-accented speech maskers did not influence results. Neither the nonnative English-speaking listeners with normal hearing nor the monolingual English speakers with hearing loss benefited from masking release when the masker was changed from native-accented to foreign-accented English.
CONCLUSIONS: Slight modifications between the target and the masker speech allowed monolingual English speakers with normal hearing to improve their recognition of native-accented English, even when the competing speech was highly intelligible. Further research is needed to determine which modifications within the competing speech signal caused the Mandarin-accented English to be less effective with respect to masking. Determining the influences within the competing speech that make it less effective as a masker or determining why monolingual normal-hearing listeners can take advantage of these differences could help improve speech recognition for those with hearing loss in the future. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25126683      PMCID: PMC4574911          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.25.4.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  22 in total

1.  The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit.

Authors:  Tessa Bent; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution.

Authors:  Su-Hyun Jin; Peggy B Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise.

Authors:  M L Garcia Lecumberri; Martin Cooke
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners.

Authors:  Patricia A Tun; Gail O'Kane; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2002-09

6.  Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds.

Authors:  R Carhart; T W Tillman; E S Greetis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1969-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

8.  Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen
Journal:  Speech Commun       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 2.017

9.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children.

Authors:  J Bench; A Kowal; J Bamford
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1979-08

10.  Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content.

Authors:  Susanne Brouwer; Kristin J Van Engen; Lauren Calandruccio; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.482

View more
  6 in total

1.  Enhancing the perceptual segregation and localization of sound sources with a triple beamformer.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Todd R Jennings; Andrew J Byrne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of linguistic experience on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral masker modulation.

Authors:  Lauren Calandruccio; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Auditory-neurophysiological responses to speech during early childhood: Effects of background noise.

Authors:  Travis White-Schwoch; Evan C Davies; Elaine C Thompson; Kali Woodruff Carr; Trent Nicol; Ann R Bradlow; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Linguistic Masking Release in School-Age Children and Adults.

Authors:  Lauren Calandruccio; Lori J Leibold; Emily Buss
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.493

5.  Effects of Noise on English Listening Comprehension among Chinese College Students with Different Learning Styles.

Authors:  Xiaohu Yang; Meng Jiang; Yong Zhao
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-10-16

6.  High variability phonetic training in adaptive adverse conditions is rapid, effective, and sustained.

Authors:  Christine Xiang Ru Leong; Jessica M Price; Nicola J Pitchford; Walter J B van Heuven
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.