Hearing speech against spatially separate competing speech versus competing noise

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 64, Issue 8, 2002, Pages 1325-1336

  Noble, William ^a   Perrett, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PILOT STUDY; REACTION TIME; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NOISE; PILOT PROJECTS; REACTION TIME; SOUND LOCALIZATION; SPACE PERCEPTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0036879160     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194775     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. BREGMAN, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. BRONKHORST, A. W., & PLOMP, R. (1988). The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 1508-1516.
3. BRONKHORST, A. W., & PLOMP, R. (1992). Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 3132-3139.
4. COREN, S., & HAKSTIAN, A. R. (1992). The development and cross-validation of a self-report inventory to assess pure-tone threshold sensitivity. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 35, 921-928.
5. CULLING, J. F., & SUMMERFIELD, Q. (1995). Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: Absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 785-797.
6. DARWIN, C. J., & HUKIN, R. W. (1999). Auditory objects of attention: The role of interaural time differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 617-629.
7. DARWIN, C. J., & HUKIN, R. W. (2000). Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 970-977.
8. DIRKS, D. D., & BOWER, D. R. (1969). Masking effects of speech competing messages. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 12, 229-245.
9. FESTEN, J. M., & PLOMP, R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1725-1736.
10. FREYMAN, R. L., HELFER, K. S., MCCALL, D. D., & CLIFTON, R. K. (1999). The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3578-3588.
11. HAWLEY, M. L. (2000). Speech intelligibility, localisation and binaural hearing in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
12. HIRSH, I. J. (1950). The relation between localization and intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 196-200.
13. KIDD, G., MASON, C. R., ROHTLA, T. L., & DELIWALA, P. S. (1998). Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 422-431.
14. KOLLMEIER, B., & WESSELKAMP, M. (1997). Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2412-2421.
15. MASTERTON, B., HEFFNER, H., & RAVIZZA, R. (1969). The evolution of human hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 45, 966-985.
16. MIDDLEBROOKS, J. C., & GREEN, D. M. (1991). Sound localization by human listeners. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 135-159.
17. PEISSIG, J., & KOLLMEIER, B. (1997). Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 1660-1670.
18. PERRETT, S., & NOBLE, W. (1997). The contribution of head motion cues to localization of low-pass noise. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1018-1026.
19. SPEAKS, C., PARKER, B., HARRIS, C., & KUHL, P. (1972). Intelligibility of connected discourse. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 15, 590-602.
20. TER-HORST, K., BYRNE, D., & NOBLE, W. (1993). Ability of hearing-impaired listeners to benefit from separation of speech and noise. Australian Journal of Audiology, 15, 71-84.
21. WALKER, G., & BYRNE, D. (1985). Reliability of speech intelligibility estimation for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Australian Journal of Audiology, 7, 23-31.
22. WARREN, D. H., WELCH, R. B., & MCCARTHY, T. J. (1981). The role of visual-auditory "compellingness" in the ventriloquism effect: Implications for transitivity among the spatial senses. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 557-564.
23. WIGHTMAN, F. L., & KISTLER, D. J. (1993). Sound localization. In W. A. Yost, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Human psychophysics (Springer series in auditory research, Vol. 3, pp. 155-192). New York: Springer-Verlag.
24. YOST, W. A., DYE, R. H., JR., & SHEFT, S. (1996). A simulated "cocktail party" with up to three sound sources. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 1026-1036.
25. ZUREK, P. M. (1993). A note on onset effects in binaural hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 1200-1201.