Literature DB >> 29092612

Similar abilities of musicians and non-musicians to segregate voices by fundamental frequency.

Mickael L D Deroche1, Charles J Limb2, Monita Chatterjee3, Vincent L Gracco4.   

Abstract

Musicians can sometimes achieve better speech recognition in noisy backgrounds than non-musicians, a phenomenon referred to as the "musician advantage effect." In addition, musicians are known to possess a finer sense of pitch than non-musicians. The present study examined the hypothesis that the latter fact could explain the former. Four experiments measured speech reception threshold for a target voice against speech or non-speech maskers. Although differences in fundamental frequency (ΔF0s) were shown to be beneficial even when presented to opposite ears (experiment 1), the authors' attempt to maximize their use by directing the listener's attention to the target F0 led to unexpected impairments (experiment 2) and the authors' attempt to hinder their use by generating uncertainty about the competing F0s led to practically negligible effects (experiments 3 and 4). The benefits drawn from ΔF0s showed surprisingly little malleability for a cue that can be used in the complete absence of energetic masking. In half of the experiments, musicians obtained better thresholds than non-musicians, particularly in speech-on-speech conditions, but they did not reliably obtain larger ΔF0 benefits. Thus, the data do not support the hypothesis that the musician advantage effect is based on greater ability to exploit ΔF0s.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29092612      PMCID: PMC5626570          DOI: 10.1121/1.5005496

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


  49 in total

1.  Superior pre-attentive auditory processing in musicians.

Authors:  S Koelsch; E Schröger; M Tervaniemi
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1999-04-26       Impact factor: 1.837

2.  Waveform interactions and the segregation of concurrent vowels.

Authors:  A de Cheveigné
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Binaural sluggishness in the perception of tone sequences and speech in noise.

Authors:  J F Culling; H S Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Binaural speech intelligibility in rooms with variations in spatial location of sources and modulation depth of noise interferers.

Authors:  Benjamin Collin; Mathieu Lavandier
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type.

Authors:  Mickael L D Deroche; John F Culling
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Musical experience limits the degradative effects of background noise on the neural processing of sound.

Authors:  Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Erika Skoe; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Nonmonotonicity of informational masking.

Authors:  E L Oh; R A Lutfi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Musicians experience less age-related decline in central auditory processing.

Authors:  Benjamin Rich Zendel; Claude Alain
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2011-09-12

9.  Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise.

Authors:  Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Erika Skoe; Carrie Lam; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Transfer of Training between Music and Speech: Common Processing, Attention, and Memory.

Authors:  Mireille Besson; Julie Chobert; Céline Marie
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-05-12
View more
  7 in total

1.  Effects of auditory selective attention on neural phase: individual differences and short-term training.

Authors:  Aeron Laffere; Fred Dick; Adam Tierney
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Linguistic, perceptual, and cognitive factors underlying musicians' benefits in noise-degraded speech perception.

Authors:  Jessica Yoo; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Comparison of Two Music Training Approaches on Music and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Christina D Fuller; John J Galvin; Bert Maat; Deniz Başkent; Rolien H Free
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Effects of Musical Training and Hearing Loss on Fundamental Frequency Discrimination and Temporal Fine Structure Processing: Psychophysics and Modeling.

Authors:  Federica Bianchi; Laurel H Carney; Torsten Dau; Sébastien Santurette
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-28

5.  Speech perception is similar for musicians and non-musicians across a wide range of conditions.

Authors:  Sara M K Madsen; Marton Marschall; Torsten Dau; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Music and Speech Perception in Children Using Sung Speech.

Authors:  Yingjiu Nie; John J Galvin; Michael Morikawa; Victoria André; Harley Wheeler; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

7.  Music Training Can Improve Music and Speech Perception in Pediatric Mandarin-Speaking Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Xiaoting Cheng; Yangwenyi Liu; Yilai Shu; Duo-Duo Tao; Bing Wang; Yasheng Yuan; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Bing Chen
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.