title: Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding.
abstract: Some of the most common interfering background sounds a listener experiences are the sounds of other talkers. In Experiment 1, recognition for natural Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) sentences was measured in normal-hearing adults at two fixed signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) in 16 backgrounds with the same long-term spectrum: unprocessed speech babble (1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 talkers), noise-vocoded versions of the babbles (12 channels), noise modulated with the wide-band envelope of the speech babbles, and unmodulated noise. All talkers were adult males. For a given number of talkers, natural speech was always the most effective masker. The greatest changes in performance occurred as the number of talkers in the maskers increased from 1 to 2 or 4, with small changes thereafter. In Experiment 2, the same targets and maskers (1, 2, and 16 talkers) were used to measure speech reception thresholds (SRTs) adaptively. Periodicity in the target was also manipulated by noise-vocoding, which led to considerably higher SRTs. The greatest masking effect always occurred for the masker type most similar to the target, while the effects of the number of talkers were generally small. Implications are drawn with reference to glimpsing, informational vs energetic masking, overall SNR, and aspects of periodicity.
authors.affiliation: UCL Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, 2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, United Kingdom. stuart@phon.ucl.ac.uk
authors.forename: Stuart
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rosen
authors.forename: Pamela
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Souza
authors.forename: Caroline
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Ekelund
authors.forename: Arooj A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Majeed
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009622:Noise / Q000009:adverse effects*; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D010507:Periodicity; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D059629:Signal-To-Noise Ratio; D013067:Speech Perception; D013069:Speech Reception Threshold Test; D013997:Time Factors; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1150-63
references.pmid: 11519582
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Jan;103(1):577-87
references.pmid: 9440343
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Jan;123(1):450-61
references.pmid: 18177173
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Jul;132(1):317-26
references.pmid: 22779480
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Mar;125(3):1737-43
references.pmid: 19275330
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Feb;115(2):833-43
references.pmid: 15000195
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Aug;116(2):1081-91
references.pmid: 15376674
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Feb;115(2):813-21
references.pmid: 15000192
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Nov;130(5):2855-65
references.pmid: 22087914
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2001 Oct;22(5):431-8
references.pmid: 11605950
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 May;125(5):3358-72
references.pmid: 19425676
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2011 Feb;32(1):75-83
references.pmid: 20739892
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Aug;126(2):792-805
references.pmid: 19640044
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Apr;131(4):2914-26
references.pmid: 22501069
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 May;109(5 Pt 1):2112-22
references.pmid: 11386563
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 May;134(2):222-41
references.pmid: 15869347
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Jul;114(1):446-54
references.pmid: 12880055
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Dec;126(6):2860-3
references.pmid: 20000898
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Oct;116(4 Pt 1):2298-310
references.pmid: 15532661
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Nov;112(5 Pt 1):2086-98
references.pmid: 12430820
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Mar;109(3):1101-9
references.pmid: 11303924
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Jul;130(1):473-88
references.pmid: 21786913
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 Mar;10(2):165-8; discussion 169-71
references.pmid: 17286839
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 May;115(5 Pt 1):2246-56
references.pmid: 15139635
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Nov;118(5):2775-8
references.pmid: 16334654
references.citation: J Insect Sci. 2003;3:34
references.pmid: 15841249
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Oct;126(4):1926-40
references.pmid: 19813805
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 5;103(49):18866-9
references.pmid: 17116863
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Jun;97(6):3736-48
references.pmid: 7790652
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):190-210
references.pmid: 20689036
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Feb;113(2):961-8
references.pmid: 12597189
references.citation: Audiology. 1979 Jan-Feb;18(1):43-52
references.pmid: 760724
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1947 Mar;44(2):105-29
references.pmid: 20288932
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 May;12(5):182-6
references.pmid: 18396091
references.citation: Science. 1995 Oct 13;270(5234):303-4
references.pmid: 7569981
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 May;93(5):2915-22
references.pmid: 8315155
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Jun;87(6):2592-605
references.pmid: 2373794
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1992 Jun 29;336(1278):367-73
references.pmid: 1354376