Advertisement

Can the diffuseness of sound sources in an auditory scene alter speech perception?

  • Meital Avivi-Reich
  • Brendan Fifield
  • Bruce A. SchneiderEmail author
Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

When amplification is used, sound sources are often presented over multiple loudspeakers, which can alter their timbre, and introduce comb-filtering effects. Increasing the diffuseness of a sound by presenting it over spatially separated loudspeakers might affect the listeners’ ability to form a coherent auditory image of it, alter its perceived spatial position, and may even affect the extent to which it competes for the listener’s attention. In addition, it can lead to comb-filtering effects that can alter the spectral profiles of sounds arriving at the ears. It is important to understand how these changes affect speech perception. In this study, young adults were asked to repeat nonsense sentences presented in either noise, babble, or speech. Participants were divided into two groups: (1) A Compact-Target Timbre group where the target sentences were presented over a single loudspeaker (compact target), while the masker was either presented over three loudspeakers (diffuse) or over a single loudspeaker (compact); (2) A Diffuse-Target Timbre group, where the target sentences were diffuse while the masker was either compact or diffuse. Timbre had no significant effect in the absence of a timbre contrast between target and masker. However, when there was a timbre contrast, the signal-to-noise ratios needed for 50% correct recognition of the target speech were higher (worse) when the masker was compact, and lower (better) when the target was compact. These results were consistent with the expected effects from comb filtering, and could also reflect a tendency for attention to be drawn towards compact sound sources.

Keywords

Speech perception Hearing Scene perception 

Abbreviations

TC

Compact target sound source

TD

Diffuse target sound source

MC

Compact masker sound source

MD

Diffuse masker sound source

Notes

References

  1. Arbogast, T. L., Mason, C. R., Kidd, G. (2002). The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(5), 2086-2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avivi-Reich, M., Daneman, M., and Schneider, B. A. (2014). How age and linguistic competence alter the interplay of perceptual and cognitive factors when listening to conversations in a noisy environment. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8 21.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00021 Google Scholar
  3. Avivi-Reich, M., Jakubczyk, A., Daneman, M., Schneider, B.A. (2015). How age, linguistic status, and the nature of the auditory scene alter the manner in which listening comprehension is achieved in multitalker conversations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(5), 1570-1591.  https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avivi-Reich, M., Puka, K., Schneider, B.A. (2018). Do age and linguistic background alter the audiovisual advantage when listening to speech in the presence of energetic and informational masking? Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 80 (1), 242-261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-David, B. M., Tse, V. Y. Y., Schneider, B. A. (2012). Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker? Hearing Research, 290, 55-63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2012.04.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilger, R. C., Nuetzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M., Rzeczkowski, C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 32-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. I., Bennett, J. M., Hanna, G. (1981). The Nelson-Denny reading test. Chicago: Riverside.Google Scholar
  9. Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D. (2002). The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(2), 664-676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D., Ericson, M. A., Scott, K. R. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(5), 2527-2538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooke, M. P. (2006). A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(3), 562-1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durlach, N. I., Mason, C. R., Kidd, G., Arbogast, T. L., Colburn, H. S., Shinn-Cunningham, B.G. (2003). Note on informational masking. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(6), 2984-2987.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1570435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ezzatian, P., Avivi, M., Schneider, B. A. (2010). Do nonnative listeners benefit as much as native listeners from spatial cues that release from speech masking? Speech Communication, 5, 919-929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franconeri, S. L., Simons, D. J. (2003). Moving and looming stimuli capture attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 999-1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freyman, R.L., Balakrishnan, U., Helfer, K.S. (2004). Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 2246-2256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freyman, R. L., Helfer, K. S., McCall, D. D., Clifton, R. K. (1999). The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(6), 3578-3588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helfer, K. S. (1997). Auditory and auditory-visual perception of clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40(2), 432-443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Humes, L. E., Lee, J. H., Coughlin, M. P. (2006). Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(5), 2926-2937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kidd, G., Mason, C. R., Richards, V. M., Gallun, F. J., Durlach, N. I. (2008). Informational masking. In: Yost, W. A., Popper, A. N., Fay, R. R. (eds) Auditory perception of sound sources, New York, NY: Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, pp. 143–190.Google Scholar
  20. Lavandier, M., & Culling, J. F. (2008). Speech segregation in rooms: Monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 2237-2248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, L., Daneman, M., Qi, J. G., Schneider, B. A. (2004). Does the information content of an irrelevant source differentially affect speech recognition in younger and older adults? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 1077-1091.Google Scholar
  22. Mattys, S., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., Scott, S. (2013). Speech Recognition in Adverse Conditions: Explorations in Behaviour and Neuroscience. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mershon, D.H., King, L.E. (1975). Intensity and reverberation as factors in the auditory perception of egocentric distance. Perception & Psychophysics, 18 (6), 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rakerd, B., Aaronson, N. L., Hartmann, W. M. (2006). Release from speech-on-speech masking by adding a delayed masker at a different location. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(3), 1597-605.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2161438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raven, J. C. (1965). The Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale. London: H.K. Lewis.Google Scholar
  26. Schneider, B. A., Avivi-Reich, M., Mozuraitis, M. (2015). A cautionary note on the use of the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in classification designs with and without within-subject factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 474.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00474 Google Scholar
  27. Schneider, B. A., Li, L. Daneman, M. (2007). How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 578-591.  https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.7.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider, B. A., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Daneman, M. (2010). The effects of senescent changes in audition and cognition on spoken language comprehension. In S. Gordon-Salant, R. D. Frisina, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Auditory Research: The Aging Auditory System: Perceptual Characterization and Neural Bases of Presbycusis (167-210). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Vongpaisal, T., Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2007). Effect of age on use of F0 to segregate concurrent vowels. Journal of speech, hearing and language research, 50, 1139-1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang, Z. G., Chen, J., Huang, Q., Wu, X., Wu, Y., Schneider, B. A. (2007). The effect of voice cuing on releasing Chinese speech from informational masking. Speech Communication, 49, 892-904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meital Avivi-Reich
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brendan Fifield
    • 1
  • Bruce A. Schneider
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PsycholoygyUniversity of Toronto at MississaugaMississaugaCanada
  2. 2.Communication Arts, Sciences and DisordersBrooklyn College, City University of New YorkBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations