Basic Aspects of Hearing pp 511-518 | Cite as
Energetic and Informational Masking in a Simulated Restaurant Environment
Abstract
Participants were seated at a central table for two in a virtual restaurant, simulated over headphones. They listened to the person across the table. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured as a function of the number of interfering sources distributed across other tables in the room; those sources were either speech-shaped noises or competing speech. The restaurant either was enclosed by acoustically reflective surfaces or was anechoic. Variations in SRT for speech-shaped noises were accurately predicted (r = 0.96) by a model of spatial release from masking based on the additive combination of better-ear listening and binaural unmasking. However, SRTs for interfering voices followed a different pattern. A single interfering voice gave a lower SRT than a single speech-shaped noise source (by 6.3 dB in anechoic conditions and 1.2 dB in reverberant conditions). This difference can be attributed to the effects of dip listening and to the exploitation of differences between voices in fundamental frequency (F0). SRTs for two interfering voices were markedly higher than for a single voice, particularly when the interfering voice was the same as the target voice. Multiple speech interferers produced more masking than multiple noise interferers. This effect can be attributed to informational masking (IM). These results indicate that current models require some elaboration before they will produce accurate predictions of intelligibility in noisy social environments.
References
- Allen JB, Berkley DA (1979) Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 65:943–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beutelmann R, Brand T (2006) Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 120:331–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beutelmann R, Brand T, Kollmeier B (2010) Revision, extension and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model. J Acoust Soc Am 127:2479–2497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brokx JPL, Nooteboom SG (1992) Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. J Phon 10:23–36Google Scholar
- Brungart DS (2001) Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 109:1101–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Culling JF, Darwin CJ (1993) Perceptual separation of concurrent vowels: within and across formant grouping by F0. J Acoust Soc Am 93:3454–3467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Culling JF, Hodder KI, Toh CY (2003) Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. J Acoust Soc Am 114:2871–2876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Culling JF, Hawley ML, Litovsky RY (2004) The role of head-induced interaural time and level differences in the speech reception threshold for multiple interfering sound sources. J Acoust Soc Am 116:1057–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Culling JF, Summerfield Q, Marshall DH (1994) Effects of simulated reverberation on binaural cues and fundamental frequency differences for separating concurrent vowels. Speech Comm. 14:71–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- de Cheveigné A, McAdams S, Laroche J, Rosenberg M (1995) Identification of concurrent harmonic and inharmonic vowels: a test of the theory of harmonic cancellation and enhancement. J Acoust Soc Am 97:3736–3748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- de Laat JAPM, Plomp R (1983) The reception threshold of interrupted speech. In: Kinke R, Hartman R (eds) Hearing: physiological bases and psychophysics. Springer, Berlin, pp 359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deroche M, Culling JF (2011a) Narrow noise band detection in a complex masker: masking level difference due to harmonicity. Hear Res 282:225–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deroche M, Culling JF (2011b) Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: evidence for harmonic cancellation. J Acoust Soc Am 130:2855–2865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Festen JM, and Plomp R (1990) Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 88:1725–1736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gardner WG, Martin KD (1995) HRTF measurements of a KEMAR. J Acoust Soc Am 97:3907–3908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hawley ML, Litovsky RY, and Culling JF (2004) The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: Effect of location and type of masker. J Acoust Soc Am 115:833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jelfs S, Lavandier M, Culling JF (2011) Revision and validation of a binaural model for speech intelligibility in noise. Hear Res 275:96–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lavandier M, Culling JF (2010) Prediction of binaural speech intelligibility against noise in rooms. J Acoust Soc Am 127:387–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lavandier M, Jelfs S, Culling JF, Watkins AJ, Raimond AP, Makin SJ (2012) Binaural prediction of speech intelligibility in reverberant rooms with multiple noise sources. J Acoust Soc Am 131:218–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR (1983) Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. J Acoust Soc Am 74:750–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ (2005) 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 117:2181–2192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rothauser EH, Chapman WD, Guttman N, Nordby KS, Silbiger HR, Urbanek GE, Weinstock M (1969) I.E.E.E. recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Aud Electroacoust 17:227–246Google Scholar
- Schroeder MR (1965) New method of measuring reverberation time. J Acoust Soc Am 37:409–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar