scholarly journals Using spatial release from masking to estimate the magnitude of the familiar-voice intelligibility benefit

2019 ◽  
Vol 146 (5) ◽  
pp. 3487-3494
Author(s):  
Ysabel Domingo ◽  
Emma Holmes ◽  
Ewan Macpherson ◽  
Ingrid S. Johnsrude
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ysabel Domingo ◽  
Emma Holmes ◽  
Ewan Macpherson ◽  
Ingrid Johnsrude

The ability to segregate simultaneous speech streams is crucial for successful communication. Recent studies have demonstrated that participants can report 10–20% more words spoken by naturally familiar (e.g., friends or spouses) than unfamiliar talkers in two-voice mixtures. This benefit is commensurate with one of the largest benefits to speech intelligibility currently known—that gained by spatially separating two talkers. However, because of differences in the methods of these previous studies, the relative benefits of spatial separation and voice familiarity are unclear. Here, we directly compared the familiar-voice benefit and spatial release from masking, and examined if and how these two cues interact with one another. We recorded talkers speaking sentences from a published closed-set “matrix” task and then presented listeners with three different sentences played simultaneously. Each target sentence was played at 0° azimuth, and two masker sentences were symmetrically separated about the target. On average, participants reported 10–30% more words correctly when the target sentence was spoken in a familiar than unfamiliar voice (collapsed over spatial separation conditions); we found that participants gain a similar benefit from a familiar target as when an unfamiliar voice is separated from two symmetrical maskers by approximately 15° azimuth.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick J. Gallun ◽  
Garnett P. McMillan ◽  
Sean D. Kampel ◽  
Kasey M. Jakien ◽  
Nirmal K. Srinivasan ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 233121651987237 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Moore ◽  
Helen Whiston ◽  
Melanie Lough ◽  
Antonia Marsden ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
...  

Pure-tone threshold audiometry is currently the standard test of hearing. However, in everyday life, we are more concerned with listening to speech of moderate loudness and, specifically, listening to a particular talker against a background of other talkers. FreeHear delivers strings of three spoken digits (0–9, not 7) against a background babble via three loudspeakers placed in front and to either side of a listener. FreeHear is designed as a rapid, quantitative initial assessment of hearing using an adaptive algorithm. It is designed especially for children and for testing listeners who are using hearing devices. In this first report on FreeHear, we present developmental considerations and protocols and results of testing 100 children (4–13 years old) and 23 adults (18–30 years old). Two of the six 4 year olds and 91% of all older children completed full testing. Speech reception threshold (SRT) for digits and noise colocated at 0° or separated by 90° both improved linearly across 4 to 12 years old by 6 to 7 dB, with a further 2 dB improvement for the adults. These data suggested full maturation at approximately 15 years old SRTs at 90° digits/noise separation were better by approximately 6 dB than SRTs colocated at 0°. This spatial release from masking did not change significantly across age. Test–retest reliability was similar for children and adults (standard deviation of 2.05–2.91 dB SRT), with a mean practice improvement of 0.04–0.98 dB. FreeHear shows promise as a clinical test for both children and adults. Further trials in people with hearing impairment are ongoing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (04) ◽  
pp. 271-276
Author(s):  
Grant King ◽  
Nicole E. Corbin ◽  
Lori J. Leibold ◽  
Emily Buss

Abstract Background Speech recognition in complex multisource environments is challenging, particularly for listeners with hearing loss. One source of difficulty is the reduced ability of listeners with hearing loss to benefit from spatial separation of the target and masker, an effect called spatial release from masking (SRM). Despite the prevalence of complex multisource environments in everyday life, SRM is not routinely evaluated in the audiology clinic. Purpose The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of assessing SRM in adults using widely available tests of speech-in-speech recognition that can be conducted using standard clinical equipment. Research Design Participants were 22 young adults with normal hearing. The task was masked sentence recognition, using each of five clinically available corpora with speech maskers. The target always sounded like it originated from directly in front of the listener, and the masker either sounded like it originated from the front (colocated with the target) or from the side (separated from the target). In the real spatial manipulation conditions, source location was manipulated by routing the target and masker to either a single speaker or to two speakers: one directly in front of the participant, and one mounted in an adjacent corner, 90° to the right. In the perceived spatial separation conditions, the target and masker were presented from both speakers with delays that made them sound as if they were either colocated or separated. Results With real spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 7.1 to 11.4 dB, depending on the speech corpus. With perceived spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 1.8 to 3.1 dB. Whereas real separation improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the ear contralateral to the masker, SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions is based solely on interaural timing cues. Conclusions The finding of robust SRM with widely available speech corpora supports the feasibility of measuring this important aspect of hearing in the audiology clinic. The finding of a small but significant SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions suggests that modified materials could be used to evaluate the use of interaural timing cues specifically.


2020 ◽  
Vol 147 (3) ◽  
pp. 1719-1726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir V. Popov ◽  
Alexander Ya. Supin ◽  
Alisa P. Gvozdeva ◽  
Dmitry I. Nechaev ◽  
Mikhail B. Tarakanov ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
pp. 404-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney C. Lane ◽  
Norbert Kopco ◽  
Bertrand Delgutte ◽  
Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham ◽  
H. Steven Colburn

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document