No Access Submitted: 28 February 2002 Accepted: 06 August 2002 Published Online: 25 October 2002
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112, 2086 (2002);
more...View Affiliations
  • Department of Communication Disorders and The Hearing Research Center, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215
View Contributors
  • Tanya L. Arbogast
  • Christine R. Mason
  • Gerald Kidd Jr.
The effect of spatial separation of sources on the masking of a speech signal was investigated for three types of maskers, ranging from energetic to informational. Normal-hearing listeners performed a closed-set speech identification task in the presence of a masker at various signal-to-noise ratios. Stimuli were presented in a quiet sound field. The signal was played from 0° azimuth and a masker was played either from the same location or from 90° to the right. Signals and maskers were derived from sentences that were preprocessed by a modified cochlear-implant simulation program that filtered each sentence into 15 frequency bands, extracted the envelopes from each band, and used these envelopes to modulate pure tones at the center frequencies of the bands. In each trial, the signal was generated by summing together eight randomly selected frequency bands from the preprocessed signal sentence. Three maskers were derived from the preprocessed masker sentences: (1) different-band sentence, which was generated by summing together six randomly selected frequency bands out of the seven bands not present in the signal (resulting in primarily informational masking); (2) different-band noise, which was generated by convolving the different-band sentence with Gaussian noise; and (3) same-band noise, which was generated by summing the same eight bands from the preprocessed masker sentence that were used in the signal sentence and convolving the result with Gaussian noise (resulting in primarily energetic masking). Results revealed that in the different-band sentence masker, the effect of spatial separation averaged 18 dB (at 51% correct), while in the different-band and same-band noise maskers the effect was less than 10 dB. These results suggest that, in these conditions, the advantage due to spatial separation of sources is greater for informational masking than for energetic masking.
  1. 1. Allen, P., and Wightman, F.(1994). “Psychometric functions for children’s detection of tones in noise,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 37, 205–215. Google ScholarCrossref
  2. 2. Bolia, R. S., Ericson, M. A., Nelson, W. T., McKinley, R. L., and Simpson, B. D.(1999). “A cocktail party effect in the median plane?” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 1390–1391. Google ScholarScitation
  3. 3. Bolia, R. S., Nelson, W. T., Ericson, M. A., and Simpson, B. D.(2000). “A speech corpus for multitalker communications research,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 1065–1066. Google ScholarScitation
  4. 4. Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA). Google Scholar
  5. 5. Bronkhorst, A. W., and Plomp, R.(1990). “A clinical test for the assessment of binaural speech perception in noise,” Audiology 29, 275–285. Google ScholarCrossref
  6. 6. Bronkhorst, A. W., and Plomp, R.(1992). “Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 3132–3139. Google ScholarScitation
  7. 7. Brungart, D. S.(2001a). “Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 1101–1109. Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  8. 8. Brungart, D. S.(2001b). “Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 2276–2279. Google ScholarScitation
  9. 9. Brungart, D. S., and Simpson, B. D.(2001). “Contralateral masking effects in dichotic listening with two competing talkers in the target ear,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 2486. Google ScholarScitation
  10. 10. Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D., Ericson, M. A., and Scott, K. R.(2001). “Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 2527–2538. Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  11. 11. Cherry, E. C.(1953). “Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and two ears,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25, 975–979. Google ScholarScitation
  12. 12. Dirks, D. D., and Bower, D. R.(1969). “Masking effects of speech competing messages,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 12, 229–245. Google ScholarCrossref
  13. 13. Dolan, T. R.(1968). “Effect of masker spectrum level on masking-level differences at low signal frequencies,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 44, 1507–1512. Google ScholarScitation
  14. 14. Dolan, T. R., and Robinson, D. E.(1967). “An explanation of masking level differences that result from interaural intensive disparities of noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 42, 977–981. Google ScholarScitation
  15. 15. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., and Rainey, D.(1997). “Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2403–2411. Google ScholarScitation
  16. 16. Duquesnoy, A. J.(1983). “Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74, 739–743. Google ScholarScitation
  17. 17. Egan, J. P., Carterette, E. C., and Thwing, E. J.(1954). “Some factors affecting multi-channel listening,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26, 774–782. Google ScholarScitation
  18. 18. Ericson, M. A., and McKinley, R. L. (1997). “The intelligibility of multiple talkers separated spatially in noise,” in Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, edited by R. H. Gilkey and T. R. Anderson (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 701–724. Google Scholar
  19. 19. Festen, J. M., 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, 1725–1736. Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  20. 20. Freyman, R. L., Helfer, K. S., McCall, D. D., and Clifton, R. K.(1999). “The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 3578–3588. Google ScholarScitation
  21. 21. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., and Helfer, K. S.(2001). “Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 2112–2122. Google ScholarScitation
  22. 22. Gelfand, S. A., Ross, L., and Miller, S.(1988). “Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: Effects of aging and hearing loss,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 248–256. Google ScholarScitation
  23. 23. Hawley, M. L. (2000). “Speech intelligibility, localization and binaural hearing in listeners with normal and impaired hearing,” Ph.D. dissertation, Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
  24. 24. Hirsh, I. J.(1948). “The influence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 20, 536–544. Google ScholarScitation
  25. 25. Kidd, G., Jr., Mason, C. R., and Arbogast, T. L.(2002). “Similarity, uncertainty and masking in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 1367–1376. Google ScholarScitation
  26. 26. Kidd, G., Jr., Mason, C. R., and Rohtla, T. L.(1995). “Binaural advantage for sound pattern identification,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98, 1977–1986. Google ScholarScitation
  27. 27. Kidd, G., Jr., Mason, C. R., Rohtla, T. L., and Deliwala, P. S.(1998). “Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 422–431. Google ScholarScitation
  28. 28. Leek, M. R., Brown, M. E., and Dorman, M. F.(1991). “Informational masking and auditory attention,” Percept. Psychophys. 50, 205–214. Google ScholarCrossref
  29. 29. Levitt, H.(1971). “Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 467–477. Google ScholarScitation
  30. 30. Lutfi, R. A.(1989). “Informational processing of complex sound. I. Intensity discrimination,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86, 934–944. Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  31. 31. McFadden, D.(1968). “Masking-level differences determined with and without interaural disparities in masker intensity,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 44, 212–223. Google ScholarScitation
  32. 32. Neff, D. L.(1995). “Signal properties that reduce masking by simultaneous, random-frequency maskers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98, 1909–1920. Google ScholarScitation
  33. 33. Neff, D. L., and Green, D. M. (1987). “Masking produced by spectral uncertainty with multi-component maskers,” Percept. Psychophys. 41, 409–415. Google ScholarCrossref
  34. 34. Nilsson, M., Gelnett, D., Sullivan, J., Soli, S. D., and Goldberg, R. L.(1992). “Norms for the hearing in noise test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 2385. Google ScholarScitation
  35. 35. Peissig, J., and Kollmeier, B.(1997). “Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 1660–1670. Google ScholarScitation
  36. 36. Pollack, I.(1975). “Auditory informational masking,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1 57, S5. Google ScholarScitation
  37. 37. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., and Ekelid, M.(1995). “Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues,” Science 270, 303–304. Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  38. 38. Simpson, B. D., Bolia, R. S., Ericson, M. A., and McKinley, R. L.(1999). “The effect of sentence onset asynchrony on call sign detection and message intelligibility in a simulated ‘cocktail party,’ ” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 1024. Google ScholarScitation
  39. 39. Watson, C. S. (1987). “Uncertainty, informational masking and the capacity of immediate auditory memory,” in Auditory Processing of Complex Sounds, edited by W. A. Yost and C. S. Watson (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 267–277. Google Scholar
  40. 40. Watson, C. S., Kelly, W. J., and Wroton, H. W.(1976). “Factors in the discrimination of tonal patterns: II. Selective attention and learning under various levels of stimulus uncertainty,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 60, 1175–1181. Google ScholarScitation
  41. 41. Wilson, R. H., and Carter, A. S.(2001). “Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol 12, 7–14. Google Scholar
  42. 42. Wilson, R. H., Zizz, C. A., Shanks, J. E., and Causey, G. D.(1990). “Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by a female speaker,” J. Speech Hear Disord. 55, 771–778. Google ScholarCrossref
  43. 43. Yost, W. A. (1997). “The cocktail party problem: Forty years later,” in Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, edited by R. A. Gilkey and T. R. Anderson (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 329–348. Google Scholar
  44. 44. Zurek, P. M. (1993). “Binaural advantages and directional effects in speech intelligibility,” in Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, edited by G. A. Studebaker and I. Hochberg (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA), pp. 255–276. Google Scholar
  1. © 2002 Acoustical Society of America.