The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise

Bronkhorst, Adelbert W.; Plomp, R.

doi:10.1121/1.395906

Cited by 433 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

224

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Binaural intelligibility level differences decrease as the amount of fine structure decreases (i.e., as the NF increases), demonstrated by the main effect of NF. The BILD for NF=0 in speech-shaped noise was about 6 dB on average, consistent with previous observations (e.g., Carhart et al 1967;Bronkhorst and Plomp 1988). In two-talker babble, the effect of fine structure on the BILD was highly variable among listeners and did not appear to change much as fine-structure randomization increased, averaging about 1.9 dB across all NFs.…”

Section: Binaural Intelligibility Level Differencesupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The binaural intelligibility level difference (BILD) refers to an intelligibility advantage a listener can obtain when listening to speech in noise if the binaural timing or phase of the speech differs from that of the noise (Bronkhorst and Plomp 1988). A speech reception threshold (SRT) is the signal to noise ratio (S/N) at which speech is intelligible.…”

Section: Binaural Intelligibility Level Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interaural time differences (ITDs) contribute to important real-world tasks such as localization ability (Rayleigh 1907;Wightman and Kistler 1992) and binaural unmasking (Carhart et al 1967;Bronkhorst and Plomp 1988;Culling et al 2004). Real environmental sounds provide ITDs with both envelope and fine structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Temporal Fine Structure on the Lateralization of Speech and on Speech Understanding in Noise

Drennan

Won

Dasika

et al. 2007

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the role of temporal fine structure in the lateralization and understanding of speech in six normal-hearing listeners. Interaural time differences (ITDs) were introduced to invoke lateralization. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were evaluated in backgrounds of two-talker babble and speech-shaped noise. Two-syllable words with ITDs of 0 and 700 ms were used as targets. A vocoder technique, which systematically randomized fine structure, was used to evaluate the effects of fine structure on these tasks. Randomization of temporal fine structure was found to significantly reduce the ability of normal-hearing listeners to lateralize words, although for many listeners, good lateralization performance was achieved with as much as 80% fine-structure randomization. Most listeners demonstrated some rudimentary ability to lateralize with 100% fine-structure randomization. When ITDs were 0 ms, randomization of fine structure had a much greater effect on SRT in two-talker babble than in speech-shaped noise. Binaural advantages were also observed. In steady noise, the difference in SRT between words with 0-vs 700-ms ITDs was, on average, 6 dB with no fine-structure randomization and 2 dB with 100% fine-structure randomization. In two-talker babble this difference was 1.9 dB and, for most listeners, showed little effect of the degree of finestructure randomization. These results suggest that (1) improved delivery of temporal fine structure would improve speech understanding in noise for implant recipients, (2) bilateral implant recipients might benefit from temporal envelope ITDs, and (3) improved delivery of temporal information could improve binaural benefits.

show abstract

Section: Binaural Intelligibility Level Differencesupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Binaural Intelligibility Level Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Temporal Fine Structure on the Lateralization of Speech and on Speech Understanding in Noise

Drennan

Won

Dasika

et al. 2007

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to other studies with symmetric masker configurations (Bronkhorst and Plomp 1988;Glyde et al 2013;Marrone et al 2008), subjects benefitted strongly from a spatial separation of the maskers from the target. Most comparable to the spatial configurations tested in these studies was the current ±90°c onfiguration.…”

Section: Effect Of Spatial Masker Configuration On Srmsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Better-ear effects can lead to an improvement in SI of 8-10 dB (e.g. Bronkhorst and Plomp 1988;Freyman et al 1999). This SI improvement due to spatial separation of target and masker is even higher when speech instead of noise is used as masker (Freyman et al 1999) suggesting that listeners make use of factors other than the better-ear effect to improve SI with speech maskers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binaural Glimpses at the Cocktail Party?

Lingner

Grothe

Wiegrebe

et al. 2016

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans often have to focus on a single target sound while ignoring competing maskers in everyday situations. In such conditions, speech intelligibility (SI) is improved when a target speaker is spatially separated from a masker (spatial release from making, SRM) compared to situations where both are co-located. Such asymmetric spatial configurations lead to a 'better-ear effect' with improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at one ear. However, maskers often surround the listener leading to more symmetric configurations where better-ear effects are absent in a long-term, wideband sense. Nevertheless, better-ear glimpses distributed across time and frequency persist and were suggested to account for SRM (Brungart and Iyer 2012). Here, speech reception was assessed using symmetric masker configurations while varying the spatio-temporal distribution of potential better-ear glimpses. Listeners were presented with a frontal target and eight single-talker maskers in four different symmetrical spatial configurations. Compared to the reference condition with colocated target and maskers, an SRM of up to 6 dB was observed. The SRM persisted when the frequency range of the maskers above or below 1500 Hz was replaced with stationary speech-shaped noise. Comparison to a recent short-time binaural SI model showed that betterear glimpses can account for half the observed SRM, while binaural interaction utilizing phase differences is required to explain the other half.

show abstract

Effects of Aural Atresia on Speech Development and Learning

Jensen

Grames

Lieu

2013

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Aural atresia (AA) is associated with maximal conductive hearing loss in affected ears, and children with bilateral AA require amplification. Some recent research has suggested an increased risk for speech and learning problems among children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether increased risk for speech and learning problems exists among children with AA. DESIGN Retrospective medical record review. SETTING Multidisciplinary craniofacial clinic. PARTICIPANTS Children with unilateral or bilateral AA. INTERVENTIONS Records review, including evaluations by audiologists, speech pathologists, and psychologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Rates of speech and/or language delay, prevalence of speech therapy and educational interventions, and parental report of psychosocial problems. RESULTS A total of 74 patients were identified who met inclusion and exclusion criteria: 48 with right-sided AA, 19 with left-sided AA, and 7 with bilateral AA. Children with AA demonstrated high rates of speech therapy (86% among bilateral, 43% among unilateral). Reports of school problems were more common among children with right-sided AA (31%) than those with left-sided AA (11%) or bilateral AA (0%) (P = .06). Educational interventions were common in all groups (33% right, 21% left, 43% bilateral). In the case of bilateral AA, all children who received additional interventions were enrolled in schools for the hearing impaired, without any identified learning deficiencies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Children with unilateral AA may be at greater risk of speech and learning difficulties than previously appreciated, similar to children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Whether amplification may alleviate this risk is unclear and warrants further study.

show abstract

The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise

Cited by 433 publications

References 18 publications

Effects of Temporal Fine Structure on the Lateralization of Speech and on Speech Understanding in Noise

Effects of Temporal Fine Structure on the Lateralization of Speech and on Speech Understanding in Noise

Binaural Glimpses at the Cocktail Party?

Effects of Aural Atresia on Speech Development and Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About