Note on informational masking (L)

Durlach, N. I.; Mason, Christine R.; Kidd, Gerald; Arbogast, Tanya L.; Colburn, H. Steven; Shinn‐Cunningham, Barbara

doi:10.1121/1.1570435

Cited by 330 publications

(268 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

259

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that speech sources originate from different spatial positions can eliminate some confusion that arises from the simultaneous presence of multiple speech sources (Durlach et al 2003). A further improvement can be seen for target speech presented in isolation, but otherwise manipulated identically as before (black squares in Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Intelligibility for Binaural Speech with Discarded Low-SNR Speech Components

Schoenmaker

Par

2016

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech intelligibility in multitalker settings improves when the target speaker is spatially separated from the interfering speakers. A factor that may contribute to this improvement is the improved detectability of target-speech components due to binaural interaction in analogy to the Binaural Masking Level Difference (BMLD). This would allow listeners to hear target speech components within specific time-frequency intervals that have a negative SNR, similar to the improvement in the detectability of a tone in noise when these contain disparate interaural difference cues. To investigate whether these negative-SNR target-speech components indeed contribute to speech intelligibility, a stimulus manipulation was performed where all target components were removed when local SNRs were smaller than a certain criterion value. It can be expected that for sufficiently high criterion values target speech components will be removed that do contribute to speech intelligibility. For spatially separated speakers, assuming that a BMLD-like detection advantage contributes to intelligibility, degradation in intelligibility is expected already at criterion values below 0 dB SNR. However, for collocated speakers it is expected that higher criterion values can be applied without impairing speech intelligibility. Results show that degradation of intelligibility for separated speakers is only seen for criterion values of 0 dB and above, indicating a negligible contribution of a BMLD-like detection advantage in multitalker settings. These results show that the spatial benefit is related to a spatial separation of speech components at positive local SNRs rather than to a BMLD-like detection improvement for speech components at negative local SNRs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Intelligibility for Binaural Speech with Discarded Low-SNR Speech Components

Schoenmaker

Par

2016

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Current models can account for acoustic energetic masking effects; however, in some situations, performance is worse than predicted [30]. Many natural sounds such as speech are spectro-temporally sparse, so energetic masking often affects only portions of the target, limited in both time and frequency [31].…”

Section: Energetic Maskingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps because there is no widely accepted theory to explain auditory interference beyond energetic masking, the catchall phrase "informational masking" is used to encompass all masking that is not energetic [30]. Although there is a large and growing interest in informational masking, mechanistic explanations are lacking (see also Text Box 3).…”

Section: Informational Maskingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object-based auditory and visual attention

Shinn‐Cunningham

2008

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Self Cite

639

568

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of visual attention argue that attention operates on perceptual objects, and thus that interactions between object formation and selective attention determine how competing sources interfere with perception. In auditory perception, theories of attention are less mature, and no comprehensive framework exists to explain how attention influences perceptual abilities. However, the same principles that govern visual perception can explain many seemingly disparate auditory phenomena. In particular, many recent studies of "informational masking" can be explained by failures of either auditory object formation or auditory object selection. This similarity suggests that the same neural mechanisms control attention and influence perception across different sensory modalities.

show abstract

“…When broadband noise is used as the competing signal, energetic masking dominates (Kidd et al, 2008). Energetic masking refers to masker energy that overwhelms the energy of the target signal at the level of the basilar membrane or auditory nerve (i.e., by activating similar regions of the auditory periphery) (Durlach et al, 2003). On the other hand, when speech is used as the competing signal, informational masking dominates (Kidd et al, 2005;Shinn-Cunningham, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, when speech is used as the competing signal, informational masking dominates (Kidd et al, 2005;Shinn-Cunningham, 2005). Informational masking is a broad term used to describe interference beyond energetic masking that is believed to involve higher-level processes such as those used in attention, memory, cognition, perceptual grouping, and source segregation, among others (Durlach et al, 2003; Brought to you by | MIT Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/9/18 6:11 AM Kidd et al, 2008;Schneider et al, 2007). Informational masking is believed to be vital to the understanding of the cocktail party problem (Brungart, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sentence Recognition in the Presence of Competing Speech Messages Presented in Audiometric Booths with Reverberation Times of 0.4 and 0.6 Seconds

Abouchacra¹,

Koehnke²,

Besing³

et al. 2011

Archives of Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether differences in reverberation time (RT) between typical sound field test rooms used in audiology clinics have an effect on speech recognition in multi-talker environments. Separate groups of participants listened to target speech sentences presented simultaneously with 0-to-3 competing sentences through four spatially-separated loudspeakers in two sound field test rooms having RT = 0.6 sec (Site 1: N = 16) and RT = 0.4 sec (Site 2: N = 12). Speech recognition scores (SRSs) for the Synchronized Sentence Set (S 3 ) test and subjective estimates of perceived task difficulty were recorded. Obtained results indicate that the change in room RT from 0.4 to 0.6 sec did not significantly influence SRSs in quiet or in the presence of one competing sentence. However, this small change in RT affected SRSs when 2 and 3 competing sentences were present, resulting in mean SRSs that were about 8-10% better in the room with RT = 0.4 sec. Perceived task difficulty ratings increased as the complexity of the task increased, with average ratings similar across test sites for each level of sentence competition. These results suggest that site-specific normative data must be collected for sound field rooms if clinicians would like to use two or more directional speech maskers during routine sound field testing.

show abstract

Note on informational masking (L)

Cited by 330 publications

References 37 publications

Intelligibility for Binaural Speech with Discarded Low-SNR Speech Components

Intelligibility for Binaural Speech with Discarded Low-SNR Speech Components

Object-based auditory and visual attention

Sentence Recognition in the Presence of Competing Speech Messages Presented in Audiometric Booths with Reverberation Times of 0.4 and 0.6 Seconds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About