perceptual separation
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

25
(FIVE YEARS 2)

H-INDEX

9
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica M. Wess ◽  
Joshua G. W. Bernstein

PurposeFor listeners with single-sided deafness, a cochlear implant (CI) can improve speech understanding by giving the listener access to the ear with the better target-to-masker ratio (TMR; head shadow) or by providing interaural difference cues to facilitate the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers (squelch). CI simulations presented to listeners with normal hearing examined how these benefits could be affected by interaural differences in loudness growth in a speech-on-speech masking task.MethodExperiment 1 examined a target–masker spatial configuration where the vocoded ear had a poorer TMR than the nonvocoded ear. Experiment 2 examined the reverse configuration. Generic head-related transfer functions simulated free-field listening. Compression or expansion was applied independently to each vocoder channel (power-law exponents: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2).ResultsCompression reduced the benefit provided by the vocoder ear in both experiments. There was some evidence that expansion increased squelch in Experiment 1 but reduced the benefit in Experiment 2 where the vocoder ear provided a combination of head-shadow and squelch benefits.ConclusionsThe effects of compression and expansion are interpreted in terms of envelope distortion and changes in the vocoded-ear TMR (for head shadow) or changes in perceived target–masker spatial separation (for squelch). The compression parameter is a candidate for clinical optimization to improve single-sided deafness CI outcomes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (5) ◽  
pp. 4031-4031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua G. Bernstein ◽  
Matthew Goupell ◽  
Jessica Wess ◽  
Olga Stakhovskaya ◽  
Douglas S. Brungart

2016 ◽  
Vol 113 (48) ◽  
pp. E7856-E7865 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Traer ◽  
Josh H. McDermott

In everyday listening, sound reaches our ears directly from a source as well as indirectly via reflections known as reverberation. Reverberation profoundly distorts the sound from a source, yet humans can both identify sound sources and distinguish environments from the resulting sound, via mechanisms that remain unclear. The core computational challenge is that the acoustic signatures of the source and environment are combined in a single signal received by the ear. Here we ask whether our recognition of sound sources and spaces reflects an ability to separate their effects and whether any such separation is enabled by statistical regularities of real-world reverberation. To first determine whether such statistical regularities exist, we measured impulse responses (IRs) of 271 spaces sampled from the distribution encountered by humans during daily life. The sampled spaces were diverse, but their IRs were tightly constrained, exhibiting exponential decay at frequency-dependent rates: Mid frequencies reverberated longest whereas higher and lower frequencies decayed more rapidly, presumably due to absorptive properties of materials and air. To test whether humans leverage these regularities, we manipulated IR decay characteristics in simulated reverberant audio. Listeners could discriminate sound sources and environments from these signals, but their abilities degraded when reverberation characteristics deviated from those of real-world environments. Subjectively, atypical IRs were mistaken for sound sources. The results suggest the brain separates sound into contributions from the source and the environment, constrained by a prior on natural reverberation. This separation process may contribute to robust recognition while providing information about spaces around us.


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua G. W. Bernstein ◽  
Matthew J. Goupell ◽  
Gerald I. Schuchman ◽  
Arnaldo L. Rivera ◽  
Douglas S. Brungart

2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (6) ◽  
pp. 1420-1425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuo Wang ◽  
Ruijuan Dong ◽  
Dongxin Liu ◽  
Yuan Wang ◽  
Yitao Mao ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 230 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-86
Author(s):  
Andrew Isaac Meso ◽  
Szonya Durant ◽  
Johannes M. Zanker

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document