» Articles » PMID: 31808369

Complex Acoustic Environments: Review, Framework, and Subjective Model

Overview
Journal Trends Hear
Date 2019 Dec 7
PMID 31808369
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The concept of complex acoustic environments has appeared in several unrelated research areas within acoustics in different variations. Based on a review of the usage and evolution of this concept in the literature, a relevant framework was developed, which includes nine broad characteristics that are thought to drive the complexity of acoustic scenes. The framework was then used to study the most relevant characteristics for stimuli of realistic, everyday, acoustic scenes: multiple sources, source diversity, reverberation, and the listener's task. The effect of these characteristics on perceived scene complexity was then evaluated in an exploratory study that reproduced the same stimuli with a three-dimensional loudspeaker array inside an anechoic chamber. Sixty-five subjects listened to the scenes and for each one had to rate 29 attributes, including complexity, both with and without target speech in the scenes. The data were analyzed using three-way principal component analysis with a (2 3 2) Tucker3 model in the dimensions of scales (or ratings), scenes, and subjects, explaining 42% of variation in the data. "Comfort" and "variability" were the dominant scale components, which span the perceived complexity. Interaction effects were observed, including the additional task of attending to target speech that shifted the complexity rating closer to the comfort scale. Also, speech contained in the background scenes introduced a second subject component, which suggests that some subjects are more distracted than others by background speech when listening to target speech. The results are interpreted in light of the proposed framework.

Citing Articles

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.


Behavioral dynamics of conversation, (mis)communication and coordination in noisy environments.

Miles K, Weisser A, Kallen R, Varlet M, Richardson M, Buchholz J Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):20271.

PMID: 37985887 PMC: 10662155. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-47396-y.


Binaural detection thresholds and audio quality of speech and music signals in complex acoustic environments.

Biberger T, Ewert S Front Psychol. 2022; 13:994047.

PMID: 36507051 PMC: 9729260. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.994047.


Measuring Speech Intelligibility and Hearing-Aid Benefit Using Everyday Conversational Sentences in Real-World Environments.

Miles K, Beechey T, Best V, Buchholz J Front Neurosci. 2022; 16:789565.

PMID: 35368279 PMC: 8970270. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.789565.

References
1.
Ghent R . A tutorial on complex sound fields for audiometric testing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005; 16(1):18-26. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16.1.3. View

2.
Lengagne T, Slater P . The effects of rain on acoustic communication: tawny owls have good reason for calling less in wet weather. Proc Biol Sci. 2002; 269(1505):2121-5. PMC: 1691141. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2115. View

3.
Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M . Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015; 26(2):183-96. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.26.2.7. View

4.
Oreinos C, Buchholz J . Evaluation of Loudspeaker-Based Virtual Sound Environments for Testing Directional Hearing Aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2016; 27(7):541-56. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.15094. View

5.
TILLMAN T, CARHART R, Nicholls S . Release from multiple maskers in elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res. 1973; 16(1):152-60. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.1601.152. View