2002
DOI: 10.1121/1.1510141
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech

Abstract: The effect of spatial separation of sources on the masking of a speech signal was investigated for three types of maskers, ranging from energetic to informational. Normal-hearing listeners performed a closed-set speech identification task in the presence of a masker at various signal-to-noise ratios. Stimuli were presented in a quiet sound field. The signal was played from 0 degrees azimuth and a masker was played either from the same location or from 90 degrees to the right. Signals and maskers were derived f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

23
266
4
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 310 publications
(294 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
23
266
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Again, it makes sense that spatial unmasking plays out similarly here and in this previous study. Our results are also consistent with past studies showing that spatial unmasking is greater in the presence of a masker that is similar to the target than in the presence of an energetic masker (e.g., see Kidd et al 1998;Freyman et al 1999;Arbogast et al 2002). Together, these studies show that in everyday situations, spatial separation of competing sources improves performance through improvements in the TMR at the better ear, no matter what kind of competing sounds are present; however, when masking sounds are similar to the target, perceiving sources from different directions yields additional improvements in performance by helping segregate target from masker and providing a cue that can allow listeners to direct selective attention.…”
Section: Spatial Separation Provides Different Benefits For Differentsupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Again, it makes sense that spatial unmasking plays out similarly here and in this previous study. Our results are also consistent with past studies showing that spatial unmasking is greater in the presence of a masker that is similar to the target than in the presence of an energetic masker (e.g., see Kidd et al 1998;Freyman et al 1999;Arbogast et al 2002). Together, these studies show that in everyday situations, spatial separation of competing sources improves performance through improvements in the TMR at the better ear, no matter what kind of competing sounds are present; however, when masking sounds are similar to the target, perceiving sources from different directions yields additional improvements in performance by helping segregate target from masker and providing a cue that can allow listeners to direct selective attention.…”
Section: Spatial Separation Provides Different Benefits For Differentsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…When energetic masking determines performance, the benefit of spatial separation depends on the spectral content of the competing sounds and comes about from both improvements in the target-to-masker ratio reaching the "better ear" at frequencies above about 2 kHz and binaural processing benefits, strongest for frequencies below about 1000 Hz (Zurek 1993). When failures of selective attention limit performance, spatial separation can help both by improving segregation of the target from competing maskers and enabling listeners to direct selective attention to a particular location (e.g., see Kidd et al 1998;Freyman et al 1999;Arbogast et al 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Percentage correct key word identification scores of individual CI listeners in quiet and in noise conditions. Listening condition CI 1 CI 2 CI 3 CI 4 CI 5 CI 6 CI 7 78 100 72 81 76 98 93 Quiet low pass 72 73 54 61 67 86 64 RM0Hz 42 61 47 44 30 67 41 RM4Hz 32 66 38 28 24 61 19 RM 16 Hz 40 62 40 32 40 68 36 PO-more 0 Hz 28 35 14 33 12 37 17 PO-more 4 Hz 31 29 11 38 16 42 15 PO-more16Hz 31 38 20 44 20 53 20 PO-less 0 Hz 25 46 23 34 19 34 8 PO-less4Hz 7 38 13 23 14 32 11 PO-less16Hz 19 42 19 26 27 49 18 EM-0Hz 6 38 19 13 24 41 8 EM-4 Hz 9 20 9 20 14 24 10 EM-16Hz 13 30 21 25 13 51 14 central masking could result from the listener's reduced ability to separate the target and masker due to the high degree of target-masker similarity, sometimes also referred to as informational masking (Arbogast, Mason, & Kidd, 2002;Brungart, 2001). It has been repo...…”
Section: Clinical Implications For CI Listenersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With informational masking, the target speech is represented neurally at a peripheral level, and perhaps more centrally as well, but it is difficult to pull out or differentiate the target voice from the masker. Although steady state noise produces only energetic masking, under many circumstances competing speech leads to both energetic and informational masking (e.g., Arbogast, Mason, & Kidd, 2002;Brungart, 2001;Brungart, Simpson, Ericson, & Scott, 2001;Carhart, et al, 1969;Freyman, Balakrishnan, & Helfer, 2001;Freyman, Helfer, McCall, & Clifton, 1999). Informational masking often is a factor when there is confusion about which of two or more talkers is the "target" (that is, the one the listener is trying to understand).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%