Listening to Speech in a Background of Other Talkers: Effects of Talker Number and Noise Vocoding

Overview

Journal J Acoust Soc Am

Publisher American Institute of Physics

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2013 Apr 6

PMID 23556608

Citations 77

Authors

Stuart Rosen

Pamela Souza

Caroline Ekelund

Arooj A Majeed

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Some of the most common interfering background sounds a listener experiences are the sounds of other talkers. In Experiment 1, recognition for natural Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) sentences was measured in normal-hearing adults at two fixed signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) in 16 backgrounds with the same long-term spectrum: unprocessed speech babble (1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 talkers), noise-vocoded versions of the babbles (12 channels), noise modulated with the wide-band envelope of the speech babbles, and unmodulated noise. All talkers were adult males. For a given number of talkers, natural speech was always the most effective masker. The greatest changes in performance occurred as the number of talkers in the maskers increased from 1 to 2 or 4, with small changes thereafter. In Experiment 2, the same targets and maskers (1, 2, and 16 talkers) were used to measure speech reception thresholds (SRTs) adaptively. Periodicity in the target was also manipulated by noise-vocoding, which led to considerably higher SRTs. The greatest masking effect always occurred for the masker type most similar to the target, while the effects of the number of talkers were generally small. Implications are drawn with reference to glimpsing, informational vs energetic masking, overall SNR, and aspects of periodicity.

Citing Articles

Utility of deficit-specific computer-based training on children with temporal processing deficit.

Nayana M, Kumar P Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; 282(1):491-498.

PMID: 39340652 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-024-08998-y.

Relationships Between Hearing Status, Cognitive Abilities, and Reliance on Visual and Contextual Cues.

Micula A, Holmer E, Ning R, Danielsson H Ear Hear. 2024; 46(2):433-443.

PMID: 39307930 PMC: 11825487. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001596.

The Noise Reduction Algorithm May Not Compensate for the Degradation in Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio Caused by Wide Dynamic Range Compression.

Yun D, Lentz J, Shen Y Am J Audiol. 2024; 33(3):793-809.

PMID: 38875482 PMC: 11427441. DOI: 10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00011.

Effects of linguistic context and noise type on speech comprehension.

Fitzgerald L, DeDe G, Shen J Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1345619.

PMID: 38375107 PMC: 10875108. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1345619.

Effects of entropy in real-world noise on speech perception in listeners with normal hearing and hearing lossa).

Jorgensen E, Wu Y J Acoust Soc Am. 2023; 154(6):3627-3643.

PMID: 38051522 PMC: 10699887. DOI: 10.1121/10.0022577.

References

Friesen L, Shannon R, Baskent D, Wang X . Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 110(2):1150-63. DOI: 10.1121/1.1381538. View

Peters R, Moore B, Baer T . Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 103(1):577-87. DOI: 10.1121/1.421128. View

Cullington H, Zeng F . Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 123(1):450-61. DOI: 10.1121/1.2805617. View

Stone M, Fullgrabe C, Moore B . Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 132(1):317-26. DOI: 10.1121/1.4725766. View

Scott S, Rosen S, Beaman C, Davis J, Wise R . The neural processing of masked speech: evidence for different mechanisms in the left and right temporal lobes. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 125(3):1737-43. DOI: 10.1121/1.3050255. View

Hawley M, Litovsky R, Culling J . The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: effect of location and type of interferer. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 115(2):833-43. DOI: 10.1121/1.1639908. View

Stickney G, Zeng F, Litovsky R, Assmann P . Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 116(2):1081-91. DOI: 10.1121/1.1772399. View

Scott S, Rosen S, Wickham L, Wise R . A positron emission tomography study of the neural basis of informational and energetic masking effects in speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 115(2):813-21. DOI: 10.1121/1.1639336. View

Deroche M, Culling J . Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: evidence for harmonic cancellation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 130(5):2855-65. DOI: 10.1121/1.3643812. View

10.

Faulkner A, Rosen S, Wilkinson L . Effects of the number of channels and speech-to-noise ratio on rate of connected discourse tracking through a simulated cochlear implant speech processor. Ear Hear. 2001; 22(5):431-8. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200110000-00007. View

11.

Bernstein J, Grant K . Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 125(5):3358-72. DOI: 10.1121/1.3110132. View

12.

Souza P, Arehart K, Miller C, Muralimanohar R . Effects of age on F0 discrimination and intonation perception in simulated electric and electroacoustic hearing. Ear Hear. 2010; 32(1):75-83. PMC: 3010262. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181eccfe9. View

13.

Souza P, Rosen S . Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126(2):792-805. PMC: 2730710. DOI: 10.1121/1.3158835. View

14.

Chen J, Li H, Li L, Wu X, Moore B . Informational masking of speech produced by speech-like sounds without linguistic content. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 131(4):2914-26. DOI: 10.1121/1.3688510. View

15.

Freyman R, Balakrishnan U, Helfer K . Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 109(5 Pt 1):2112-22. DOI: 10.1121/1.1354984. View

16.

Davis M, Johnsrude I, Hervais-Adelman A, Taylor K, McGettigan C . Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005; 134(2):222-41. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.222. View

17.

Qin M, Oxenham A . Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114(1):446-54. DOI: 10.1121/1.1579009. View

18.

Vestergaard M, Patterson R . Effects of voicing in the recognition of concurrent syllables. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126(6):2860-3. PMC: 2829090. DOI: 10.1121/1.3257582. View

19.

Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S . Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 116(4 Pt 1):2298-310. DOI: 10.1121/1.1785611. View

20.

Arbogast T, Mason C, Kidd Jr G . The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112(5 Pt 1):2086-98. DOI: 10.1121/1.1510141. View