A One-man Bilingual Cocktail Party: Linguistic and Non-linguistic Effects on Bilinguals' Speech Recognition in Mandarin and English

Overview

Journal Cogn Res Princ Implic

Specialty Psychology

Date 2024 Jun 4

PMID 38834918

Authors

Erin D Smith

Lori L Holt

Frederic Dick

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Multilingual speakers can find speech recognition in everyday environments like restaurants and open-plan offices particularly challenging. In a world where speaking multiple languages is increasingly common, effective clinical and educational interventions will require a better understanding of how factors like multilingual contexts and listeners' language proficiency interact with adverse listening environments. For example, word and phrase recognition is facilitated when competing voices speak different languages. Is this due to a "release from masking" from lower-level acoustic differences between languages and talkers, or higher-level cognitive and linguistic factors? To address this question, we created a "one-man bilingual cocktail party" selective attention task using English and Mandarin speech from one bilingual talker to reduce low-level acoustic cues. In Experiment 1, 58 listeners more accurately recognized English targets when distracting speech was Mandarin compared to English. Bilingual Mandarin-English listeners experienced significantly more interference and intrusions from the Mandarin distractor than did English listeners, exacerbated by challenging target-to-masker ratios. In Experiment 2, 29 Mandarin-English bilingual listeners exhibited linguistic release from masking in both languages. Bilinguals experienced greater release from masking when attending to English, confirming an influence of linguistic knowledge on the "cocktail party" paradigm that is separate from primarily energetic masking effects. Effects of higher-order language processing and expertise emerge only in the most demanding target-to-masker contexts. The "one-man bilingual cocktail party" establishes a useful tool for future investigations and characterization of communication challenges in the large and growing worldwide community of Mandarin-English bilinguals.

Citing Articles

Informational masking influences segmental and suprasegmental speech categorization.

Symons A, Holt L, Tierney A Psychon Bull Rev. 2023; 31(2):686-696.

PMID: 37658222 PMC: 11061029. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-023-02364-5.

References

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

Carlile S, Corkhill C . Selective spatial attention modulates bottom-up informational masking of speech. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:8662. PMC: 4345314. DOI: 10.1038/srep08662. View

Tun P, OKane G, Wingfield A . Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging. 2002; 17(3):453-67. DOI: 10.1037//0882-7974.17.3.453. View

Bradlow A, Ackerman L, Burchfield L, Hesterberg L, Luque J, Mok K . LANGUAGE- AND TALKER-DEPENDENT VARIATION IN GLOBAL FEATURES OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SPEECH. Proc Int Congr Phon Sci. 2013; :356-359. PMC: 3594809. View

Brouwer S . Masking release effects of a standard and a regional linguistic variety. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017; 142(2):EL237. DOI: 10.1121/1.4998607. View

Anwyl-Irvine A, Massonnie J, Flitton A, Kirkham N, Evershed J . Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behav Res Methods. 2019; 52(1):388-407. PMC: 7005094. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x. View

Ruggles D, Bharadwaj H, Shinn-Cunningham B . Why middle-aged listeners have trouble hearing in everyday settings. Curr Biol. 2012; 22(15):1417-22. PMC: 3756149. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.025. View

Shi L . Speech audiometry and Spanish-English bilinguals: challenges in clinical practice. Am J Audiol. 2014; 23(3):243-59. DOI: 10.1044/2014_AJA-14-0022. View

Iyer N, Brungart D, Simpson B . Effects of target-masker contextual similarity on the multimasker penalty in a three-talker diotic listening task. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 128(5):2998-10. DOI: 10.1121/1.3479547. View

10.

Lemhofer K, Broersma M . Introducing LexTALE: a quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behav Res Methods. 2011; 44(2):325-43. PMC: 3356522. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0. View

11.

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

12.

Koeritzer M, Rogers C, Van Engen K, Peelle J . The Impact of Age, Background Noise, Semantic Ambiguity, and Hearing Loss on Recognition Memory for Spoken Sentences. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018; 61(3):740-751. PMC: 5963044. DOI: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-17-0077. View

13.

Van Engen K . Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble. Speech Commun. 2010; 52(11-12):943-953. PMC: 3003927. DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2010.05.002. View

14.

Brungart D . Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 109(3):1101-9. DOI: 10.1121/1.1345696. View

15.

Brown V, Dillman-Hasso N, Li Z, Ray L, Mamantov E, Van Engen K . Revisiting the target-masker linguistic similarity hypothesis. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022; 84(5):1772-1787. PMC: 10701341. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02486-3. View

16.

Bolia R, Nelson W, Ericson M, Simpson B . A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107(2):1065-6. DOI: 10.1121/1.428288. View

17.

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

18.

Rhebergen K, Versfeld N . A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117(4 Pt 1):2181-92. DOI: 10.1121/1.1861713. View

19.

Leek M, Brown M, Dorman M . Informational masking and auditory attention. Percept Psychophys. 1991; 50(3):205-14. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206743. View

20.

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