title: Recognition of speech in noise after application of time-frequency masks: dependence on frequency and threshold parameters.
abstract: Binary time-frequency (TF) masks can be applied to separate speech from noise. Previous studies have shown that with appropriate parameters, ideal TF masks can extract highly intelligible speech even at very low speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Two psychophysical experiments provided additional information about the dependence of intelligibility on the frequency resolution and threshold criteria that define the ideal TF mask. Listeners identified AzBio Sentences in noise, before and after application of TF masks. Masks generated with 8 or 16 frequency bands per octave supported nearly-perfect identification. Word recognition accuracy was slightly lower and more variable with 4 bands per octave. When TF masks were generated with a local threshold criterion of 0 dB SNR, the mean speech reception threshold was -9.5 dB SNR, compared to -5.7 dB for unprocessed sentences in noise. Speech reception thresholds decreased by about 1 dB per dB of additional decrease in the local threshold criterion. Information reported here about the dependence of speech intelligibility on frequency and level parameters has relevance for the development of non-ideal TF masks for clinical applications such as speech processing for hearing aids.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Utah State University, 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322-2810, USA. sinexdg@gmail.com
authors.forename: Donal G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Sinex
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D001302:Audiometry, Speech; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009622:Noise / Q000009:adverse effects*; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D010898:Pitch Perception; D011571:Psychoacoustics; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D059629:Signal-To-Noise Ratio; D013018:Sound Spectrography; D013065:Speech Intelligibility; D013067:Speech Perception; D013997:Time Factors; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1985 Sep;28(3):455-62
references.pmid: 4046587
references.citation: Trends Amplif. 2006 Jun;10(2):67-82
references.pmid: 16959731
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2012 Jan-Feb;33(1):112-7
references.pmid: 21829134
references.citation: Hear Res. 1987;28(2-3):209-25
references.pmid: 3654390
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1979 Nov;66(5):1333-42
references.pmid: 500971
references.citation: Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11 Suppl 1:2-5
references.pmid: 17063003
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Sep;126(3):1486-94
references.pmid: 19739761
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Mar;123(3):1673-82
references.pmid: 18345855
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2008 Jan;29(1):87-98
references.pmid: 18091104
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Apr;123(4):EL59-64
references.pmid: 18396922
references.citation: Audiol Neurootol. 2008;13(3):193-205
references.pmid: 18212519
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2005 Nov;94(5):3523-37
references.pmid: 16079190
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Oct;106(4 Pt 1):2097-103
references.pmid: 10530032
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2006 Oct;27(5):480-92
references.pmid: 16957499
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Dec;120(6):4007-18
references.pmid: 17225427
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009 Oct;52(5):1230-40
references.pmid: 19380604
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Sep;126(3):1415-26
references.pmid: 19739755
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Feb;95(2):1085-99
references.pmid: 8132902
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Oct;124(4):2303-7
references.pmid: 19062868
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Apr;125(4):2336-47
references.pmid: 19354408
references.citation: Trends Amplif. 2008 Dec;12(4):332-53
references.pmid: 18974204