Literature DB >> 33138488

The effects of target-masker sex mismatch on linguistic release from masking.

Brittany T Williams1, Navin Viswanathan1.   

Abstract

Listeners often experience challenges understanding an interlocutor (target) in the presence of competing talkers (maskers). However, during linguistic release from masking (LRM), this difficulty decreases for native language targets (English) when paired with different language maskers (e.g., Dutch). There is considerable evidence that the linguistic similarity between target-masker pairs determines the size of LRM. This study investigated whether and how LRM is affected when the streams also differed in talker sex. Experiment 1 investigated intelligibility for English targets in sex-matched and mismatched conditions with Dutch or English maskers. While typical LRM effects were obtained when sex was matched, opposite effects were detected when sex was mismatched. In experiment 2, Mandarin maskers were used to increase linguistic dissimilarity and elicit stronger LRM effects. Despite the greater linguistic dissimilarity, the surprising reverse LRM effect in the sex-mismatch condition persisted. In experiment 3, the target stream was held constant and talker sex and language were manipulated in the masker. Here, expected LRM effects were obtained for both the sex-matched and sex-mismatched conditions. This indicated that the locus of the dissimilarities and not just relative properties affect LRM. Broadly, this study suggests that using naturally varying listening situations advances understanding of factors underlying LRM.

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33138488      PMCID: PMC7556881          DOI: 10.1121/10.0002165

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


  31 in total

1.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech.

Authors:  R L Freyman; K S Helfer; D D McCall; R K Clifton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition.

Authors:  R L Freyman; U Balakrishnan; K S Helfer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Auditory masking: need for improved conceptual structure.

Authors:  Nat Durlach
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Recognizing speech under a processing load: dissociating energetic from informational factors.

Authors:  Sven L Mattys; Joanna Brooks; Martin Cooke
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Tune in or tune out: age-related differences in listening to speech in music.

Authors:  Frank A Russo; M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Listeners Experience Linguistic Masking Release in Noise-Vocoded Speech-in-Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Navin Viswanathan; Kostas Kokkinakis; Brittany T Williams
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in young children.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  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

9.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a selective speech identification task.

Authors:  Antje Ihlefeld; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.482

10.  Determining the energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Jayaganesh Swaminathan; Elin Roverud; Kameron K Clayton; Virginia Best
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  1 in total

1.  Revisiting the target-masker linguistic similarity hypothesis.

Authors:  Violet A Brown; Naseem H Dillman-Hasso; ZhaoBin Li; Lucia Ray; Ellen Mamantov; Kristin J Van Engen; Julia F Strand
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 2.199

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.