Literature DB >> 36182280

Molecular analysis of individual differences in talker search at the cocktail-party.

Robert A Lutfi1, Torben Pastore2, Briana Rodriguez1, William A Yost2, Jungmee Lee1.   

Abstract

A molecular (trial-by-trial) analysis of data from a cocktail-party, target-talker search task was used to test two general classes of explanations accounting for individual differences in listener performance: cue weighting models for which errors are tied to the speech features talkers have in common with the target and internal noise models for which errors are largely independent of these features. The speech of eight different talkers was played simultaneously over eight different loudspeakers surrounding the listener. The locations of the eight talkers varied at random from trial to trial. The listener's task was to identify the location of a target talker with which they had previously been familiarized. An analysis of the response counts to individual talkers showed predominant confusion with one talker sharing the same fundamental frequency and timbre as the target and, secondarily, other talkers sharing the same timbre. The confusions occurred for a roughly constant 31% of all of the trials for all of the listeners. The remaining errors were uniformly distributed across the remaining talkers and responsible for the large individual differences in performances observed. The results are consistent with a model in which largely stimulus-independent factors (internal noise) are responsible for the wide variation in performance across listeners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36182280      PMCID: PMC9507302          DOI: 10.1121/10.0014116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   2.482


  40 in total

1.  Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation.

Authors:  Albert J Ahumada
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech.

Authors:  Tanya L Arbogast; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spatial selective auditory attention in the presence of reverberant energy: individual differences in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Dorea Ruggles; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-12-03

4.  The role of spatial location in auditory search.

Authors:  Ranmalee Eramudugolla; Ken I McAnally; Russell L Martin; Dexter R F Irvine; Jason B Mattingley
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-12       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

6.  The information-divergence hypothesis of informational masking.

Authors:  Robert A Lutfi; Lynn Gilbertson; Inseok Heo; An-Chieh Chang; Jacob Stamas
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Individual differences reveal correlates of hidden hearing deficits.

Authors:  Hari M Bharadwaj; Salwa Masud; Golbarg Mehraei; Sarah Verhulst; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Models of auditory masking: a molecular psychophysical approach.

Authors:  R H Gilkey; D E Robinson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  Cortical and Sensory Causes of Individual Differences in Selective Attention Ability Among Listeners With Normal Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Individual listener differences in azimuthal front-back reversals.

Authors:  William A Yost; M Torben Pastore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.