Perception of concurrent vowels: The effect of varying their relative level

The improvement of identification accuracy of concurrent vowels with differences in fundamental frequency (ΔF0) is usually attributed to mechanisms that exploit harmonic structure. To decide whether identification is aided primarily by selecting the target vowel on the basis of its harmonic structure (‘‘harmonic enhancement’’) or removing the interfering vowel on the basis of its harmonic structure (‘‘harmonic cancellation’’), pairs of synthetic vowels, each of which was either harmonic or inharmonic, were presented to listeners for identification. Responses for each vowel were scored according to the vowel’s harmonicity and that of the vowel that accompanied it. For a given target, identification was better by about 3% for a harmonic ground unless the target was also harmonic with the same F0. This supports the cancellation hypothesis. [...

Section: B Stimulimentioning

confidence: 97%

“…An explanation for the apparent preference of the auditory system for cancellation over enhancement may be found in an experiment by McKeown (1992). He requested subjects to identify both vowels within a pair, and at the same time judge which vowel was "dominant," and which was "domi~ nated."…”

Section: Evidence For Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of concurrent harmonic and inharmonic vowels: A test of the theory of harmonic cancellation and enhancement

Cheveigné

McAdams²,

Laroche³

et al. 1995

“…5, it was likely that large differences would also be apparent in identification of each vowel in the pair. Analysis of identification of each vowel in the pair can determine the extent to which one vowel is consistently identified correctly more often than its pair (Arehart et al, 2005;Fogerty et al, 2012;de Cheveign e et al, 1997;McKeown, 1992;McKeown and Patterson, 1995;Zwicker 1984;Hedrick and Madix, 2009;Lentz and Marsh, 2006;Chintanpalli and Heinz, 2013). Figure 6 shows identification scores (in rau) of each vowel in four vowel pairs that included /u/.…”

Section: G Variations In Identification Of One Vowel In the Pairmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of age and hearing loss on concurrent vowel identification

Chintanpalli

Ahlstrom

Dubno

2016

Differences in formant frequencies and fundamental frequencies (F0) are important cues for segregating and identifying two simultaneous vowels. This study assessed age- and hearing-loss-related changes in the use of these cues for recognition of one or both vowels in a pair and determined differences related to vowel identity and specific vowel pairings. Younger adults with normal hearing, older adults with normal hearing, and older adults with hearing loss listened to different-vowel and identical-vowel pairs that varied in F0 differences. Identification of both vowels as a function of F0 difference revealed that increased age affects the use of F0 and formant difference cues for different-vowel pairs. Hearing loss further reduced the use of these cues, which was not attributable to lower vowel sensation levels. High scores for one vowel in the pair and no effect of F0 differences suggested that F0 cues are important only for identifying both vowels. In contrast to mean scores, widely varying differences in effects of F0 cues, age, and hearing loss were observed for particular vowels and vowel pairings. These variations in identification of vowel pairs were not explained by acoustical models based on the location and level of formants within the two vowels.

“…When two steady-state synthetic vowels are presented simultaneously, identification is better when their fundamental frequencies ͑F 0 ͒ are different than when they are the same ͑Scheffers, 1983; Darwin, 1981;Zwicker, 1984;Assmann and Summerfield, 1990;McKeown, 1992;Darwin, 1993, 1994͒. A variety of models and methods of ''F 0 -guided segregation'' have been proposed to explain or emulate this effect ͓see de Cheveigné ͑1993͒ for a review͔.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Concurrent vowel identification. II. Effects of phase, harmonicity, and task

Cheveigné¹,

McAdams²,

Marin³

1997

Subjects identified concurrent synthetic vowel pairs in four experiments. The first experiment found that improvements in vowel identification with a difference in fundamental frequency do not depend on component phase. The second investigated more precisely whether phase patterns resulting from ongoing phase shifts in inharmonic stimuli can by themselves produce effects similar to those attributed to differences in harmonic state of component vowels. No such effects were found. The third experiment found that identification was better for harmonic than for inharmonic backgrounds, and that it did not depend on target harmonicity. [...