Literature DB >> 32692939

Tonal Language Speakers Are Better Able to Segregate Competing Speech According to Talker Sex Differences.

Juan Zhang1, Xing Wang1, Ning-Yu Wang1, Xin Fu1, Tian Gan1, John J Galvin2, Shelby Willis3, Kevin Xu3, Mathew Thomas3, Qian-Jie Fu3.   

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare release from masking (RM) between Mandarin-speaking and English-speaking listeners with normal hearing for competing speech when target-masker sex cues, spatial cues, or both were available. Method Speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) for competing speech were measured in 21 Mandarin-speaking and 15 English-speaking adults with normal hearing using a modified coordinate response measure task. SRTs were measured for target sentences produced by a male talker in the presence of two masker talkers (different male talkers or female talkers). The target sentence was always presented directly in front of the listener, and the maskers were either colocated with the target or were spatially separated from the target (+90°, -90°). Stimuli were presented via headphones and were virtually spatialized using head-related transfer functions. Three masker conditions were used to measure RM relative to the baseline condition: (a) talker sex cues, (b) spatial cues, or (c) combined talker sex and spatial cues. Results The results showed large amounts of RM according to talker sex and/or spatial cues. There was no significant difference in SRTs between Chinese and English listeners for the baseline condition, where no talker sex or spatial cues were available. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in RM between Chinese and English listeners when spatial cues were available. However, RM was significantly larger for Chinese listeners when talker sex cues or combined talker sex and spatial cues were available. Conclusion Listeners who speak a tonal language such as Mandarin Chinese may be able to take greater advantage of talker sex cues than listeners who do not speak a tonal language.

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32692939      PMCID: PMC7872724          DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  54 in total

1.  Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment.

Authors:  M L Hawley; R Y Litovsky; H S Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers.

Authors:  D S Brungart; B D Simpson; M A Ericson; K R Scott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Note on informational masking.

Authors:  Nathaniel I Durlach; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd; Tanya L Arbogast; H Steven Colburn; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms.

Authors:  Nicole Marrone; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Development of spatial release from masking in mandarin-speaking children with normal hearing.

Authors:  Kevin C P Yuen; Meng Yuan
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns.

Authors:  G Kidd; C R Mason; T L Rohtla; P S Deliwala
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Development of the North American Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test (NA LiSN-S): sentence equivalence, normative data, and test-retest reliability studies.

Authors:  Sharon Cameron; David Brown; Robert Keith; Jeffrey Martin; Charlene Watson; Harvey Dillon
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 9.  Properties of auditory stream formation.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore; Hedwig E Gockel
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  Masking Effects in the Perception of Multiple Simultaneous Talkers in Normal-Hearing and Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Biao Chen; Ying Shi; Lifang Zhang; Zhiming Sun; Yongxin Li; Quinton Gopen; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  4 in total

1.  Effects of tonotopic matching and spatial cues on segregation of competing speech in simulations of bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mathew Thomas; Shelby Willis; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Interactions among talker sex, masker number, and masker intelligibility in speech-on-speech recognition.

Authors:  Mathew Thomas; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  JASA Express Lett       Date:  2021-01

3.  The P300 Auditory Event-Related Potential May Predict Segregation of Competing Speech by Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Duo-Duo Tao; Yun-Mei Zhang; Hui Liu; Wen Zhang; Min Xu; John J Galvin; Dan Zhang; Ji-Sheng Liu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 5.152

4.  Tinnitus impairs segregation of competing speech in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Yang Wenyi Liu; Bing Wang; Bing Chen; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.