» Articles » PMID: 35474415

Revisiting the Target-masker Linguistic Similarity Hypothesis

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology
Date 2022 Apr 27
PMID 35474415
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The linguistic similarity hypothesis states that it is more difficult to segregate target and masker speech when they are linguistically similar. For example, recognition of English target speech should be more impaired by the presence of Dutch masking speech than Mandarin masking speech because Dutch and English are more linguistically similar than Mandarin and English. Across four experiments, English target speech was consistently recognized more poorly when presented in English masking speech than in silence, speech-shaped noise, or an unintelligible masker (i.e., Dutch or Mandarin). However, we found no evidence for graded masking effects-Dutch did not impair performance more than Mandarin in any experiment, despite 650 participants being tested. This general pattern was consistent when using both a cross-modal paradigm (in which target speech was lipread and maskers were presented aurally; Experiments 1a and 1b) and an auditory-only paradigm (in which both the targets and maskers were presented aurally; Experiments 2a and 2b). These findings suggest that the linguistic similarity hypothesis should be refined to reflect the existing evidence: There is greater release from masking when the masker language differs from the target speech than when it is the same as the target speech. However, evidence that unintelligible maskers impair speech identification to a greater extent when they are more linguistically similar to the target language remains elusive.

Citing Articles

A one-man bilingual cocktail party: linguistic and non-linguistic effects on bilinguals' speech recognition in Mandarin and English.

Smith E, Holt L, Dick F Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):35.

PMID: 38834918 PMC: 11150345. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00562-w.


The Involvement of Listening Effort in Explaining Bilingual Listening Under Adverse Listening Conditions.

Bsharat-Maalouf D, Degani T, Karawani H Trends Hear. 2023; 27:23312165231205107.

PMID: 37941413 PMC: 10637154. DOI: 10.1177/23312165231205107.


Preregistration: Practical Considerations for Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.

Brown V, Strand J J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022; 66(6):1889-1898.

PMID: 36472937 PMC: 10465155. DOI: 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00317.

References
1.
Ihlefeld A, Shinn-Cunningham B . Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a selective speech identification task. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 123(6):4369-79. PMC: 9014252. DOI: 10.1121/1.2904826. View

2.
Lidestam B, Holgersson J, Moradi S . Comparison of informational vs. energetic masking effects on speechreading performance. Front Psychol. 2014; 5:639. PMC: 4068195. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00639. View

3.
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

4.
Borrie S, Barrett T, Yoho S . Autoscore: An open-source automated tool for scoring listener perception of speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019; 145(1):392. PMC: 6347573. DOI: 10.1121/1.5087276. View

5.
Johnsrude I, Mackey A, Hakyemez H, Alexander E, Trang H, Carlyon R . Swinging at a cocktail party: voice familiarity aids speech perception in the presence of a competing voice. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24(10):1995-2004. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613482467. View