Spatial Release from Informational Masking Enhances the Early Cortical Representation of Speech Sounds

Overview

Journal Audit Percept Cogn

Date 2022 Sep 26

PMID 36160272

Authors

Benjamin H Zobel

Richard L Freyman

Lisa D Sanders

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Spatial separation between competing speech streams reduces their confusion (informational masking), improving speech processing under challenging listening conditions. The precise stages of auditory processing involved in this benefit are not fully understood. This study used event-related potentials to examine the processing of target speech under conditions of informational masking and its spatial release.

Methods: Participants detected noise-vocoded target speech presented with two-talker noise-vocoded masking speech. In separate conditions, the same set of targets were spatially co-located with maskers to produce informational masking and spatially separated from maskers using a perceptual manipulation to release the informational masking.

Results: An increase in N1 and P2 amplitude, consistent with cortical auditory evoked potentials, and a later sustained positivity (P300) were observed in response to target onsets only under conditions supporting release from informational masking. At target intensities above masking threshold in both spatial conditions, N1 and P2 latencies were shorter when targets and maskers were perceptually separated.

Discussion: These results indicate that spatial release from informational masking benefits speech representation beginning in the early stages of auditory perception. Additionally, these results suggest that the auditory evoked potential itself may be heavily dependent upon how information is perceptually organized rather than physically organized.

References

Zhang C, Lu L, Wu X, Li L . Attentional modulation of the early cortical representation of speech signals in informational or energetic masking. Brain Lang. 2014; 135:85-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.06.002. View

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

Brungart D, Simpson B, Ericson M, Scott K . Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 110(5 Pt 1):2527-38. DOI: 10.1121/1.1408946. View

Arbogast T, Mason C, Kidd Jr G . The effect of spatial separation on informational masking of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117(4 Pt 1):2169-80. DOI: 10.1121/1.1861598. View

Aiken S, Picton T . Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear Res. 2008; 245(1-2):35-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.08.004. View

Durlach N, Mason C, Kidd Jr G, Arbogast T, Colburn H, Shinn-Cunningham B . Note on informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 113(6):2984-7. DOI: 10.1121/1.1570435. View

Dean K, Grose J . The Binaural Interaction Component of the Auditory Brainstem Response Under Precedence Effect Conditions. Trends Hear. 2020; 24:2331216520946133. PMC: 7436800. DOI: 10.1177/2331216520946133. View

Hillyard S, Hink R, Schwent V, Picton T . Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science. 1973; 182(4108):177-80. DOI: 10.1126/science.182.4108.177. View

Picton T . Hearing in time: evoked potential studies of temporal processing. Ear Hear. 2013; 34(4):385-401. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827ada02. View

10.

Ikeda K, Campbell T . Reinterpreting the human ABR binaural interaction component: isolating attention from stimulus effects. Hear Res. 2021; 410:108350. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108350. View

11.

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

12.

Marsh J, Campbell T . Processing Complex Sounds Passing through the Rostral Brainstem: The New Early Filter Model. Front Neurosci. 2016; 10:136. PMC: 4861936. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00136. View

13.

Zobel B, Wagner A, Sanders L, Baskent D . Spatial release from informational masking declines with age: Evidence from a detection task in a virtual separation paradigm. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019; 146(1):548. DOI: 10.1121/1.5118240. View

14.

Gilmore C, Clementz B, Berg P . Hemispheric differences in auditory oddball responses during monaural versus binaural stimulation. Int J Psychophysiol. 2009; 73(3):326-33. PMC: 2756307. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.05.005. View

15.

Coffey E, Nicol T, White-Schwoch T, Chandrasekaran B, Krizman J, Skoe E . Evolving perspectives on the sources of the frequency-following response. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1):5036. PMC: 6834633. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-13003-w. View

16.

WALLACH H, Newman E, ROSENZWEIG M . The precedence effect in sound localization. Am J Psychol. 1949; 62(3):315-36. 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.

Freyman R, Balakrishnan U, Helfer K . Spatial release from masking with noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 124(3):1627-37. PMC: 2736712. DOI: 10.1121/1.2951964. View

19.

Zhang C, Arnott S, Rabaglia C, Avivi-Reich M, Qi J, Wu X . Attentional modulation of informational masking on early cortical representations of speech signals. Hear Res. 2015; 331:119-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.11.002. View

20.

Baskent D, Gaudrain E . Musician advantage for speech-on-speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 139(3):EL51-6. DOI: 10.1121/1.4942628. View