Contributions of binaural information to the separation of different sound sources

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 45, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2006, Pages

  Darwin, Christopher J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Binaural; Grouping; Hearing aids; Masking

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; AUDITORY MASKING; BINAURAL HEARING; HEARING AID; HUMAN; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUND; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH;

ENVIRONMENT; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMANS; SOUND LOCALIZATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33748641963     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020600782592     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ainsworth, W.A. & Miller, J.B. 1972. The effect of relative formant amplitude on the identity of synthetic vowels. Lang Speech, 15, 328-341.
2. Assmann, P.F. & Summerfield, Q. 2004. The perception of speech under adverse conditions. In S. Greenberg, W.A. Ainsworth, A.N. Popper & R.R. Fay (eds.) Speech Processing in the Auditory System. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.
3. Beerends, J.G. & Houtsma, A.J.M. 1986. Pitch identification of simultaneous dichotic two-tone complexes. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 1048-1055.
4. Bregman, A.S. & Ahad, P.A. 1995. Compact Disc: Demonstrations of auditory scene analysis. Montreal: Department of Psychology, McGill University.
5. Bronkhorst, A.W. 2000. The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acustica, 86, 117-128.
6. Bronkhorst, A.W. & Plomp, R. 1988. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 1508-1516.
7. Brungart, D.S. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1101-1109.
8. Brungart, D.S. 2005. A binary masking technique for isolating energetic masking in speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2484.
9. Cooke, M. 2003. Glimpsing speech J Phon, 31, 579-584.
10. Cooke, M. 2005. Making sense of everyday speech: a glimpsing account. In P.L. Divenyi (ed.), Speech Separation by Humans and Machines. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Cooke, M.P., Green, P.D., Josifovski, L. & Vizinho, A. 2001. Robust automatic speech recognition with missing and unreliable acoustic data. Speech Comm, 34, 267-285.
12. Culling, J.F., Summerfield, A.Q. & Marshall, D.H. 1994. Effects of simulated reverberation on the use of binaural cues and fundamental-frequency differences for separating concurrent vowels. Speech Comm, 14, 71-95.
13. Culling, J.F. & Summerfield, Q. 1995. Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 785-797.
14. Cutting, J.E. 1976. Auditory and linguistic processes in speech perception: inferences from six fusions in dichotic listening. Psych Rev, 83, 114-140.
15. Darwin, C.J. 1992. Listening to two things at once. In M.E.H. Schouten (ed.), The auditory processing of speech: from sounds to words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Darwin, C.J. 2002. Auditory streaming in language processing. In L. Tranebjaerg, T. Andersen, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard & T. Poulsen (eds.) Genetics and the Function of the Auditory System: 19th Danavox Symposium. Denmark: Holmens Trykkeri.
17. Darwin, C.J. 2005. Pitch and auditory grouping. In C.J. Plack, A.J. Oxenham, R.R. Fay & A.N. Popper (eds.) Pitch: Neural Coding and Perception. Springer Verlag.
18. Darwin, C.J., Brungart, D.S. & Simpson, B.D. 2003. Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 2913-2922.
19. Darwin, C.J. & Ciocca, V. 1992. Grouping in pitch perception: Effects of onset asynchrony and ear of presentation of a mistuned component. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 3381-3390.
20. Darwin, C.J. & Gardner, R.B. 1986. Mistuning a harmonic of a vowel: grouping and phase effects on vowel quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 79, 838-845.
21. Darwin, C.J. & Hukin, R.W. 2000a. Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody and talker characteristics in selective attention. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 970-977.
22. Darwin, C.J. & Hukin, R.W. 2000b. Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 335-342.
23. Drennan, W.R., Gatehouse, S. & Lever, C. 2003. Perceptual segregation of competing speech sounds: the role of spatial location. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 2178-89.
24. Egan, J.P., Carterette, E.C. & Thwing, E.J. 1954. Some factors affecting multi-channel listening. J Acoust Soc Am, 26, 774-782.
25. Freyman, R.L., Helfer, K.S., McCall, D.D. & Clifton, R.K. 1999. The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3578-3588.
26. Hill, N.I. & Darwin, C.J. 1996. Lateralisation of a perturbed harmonic: effects of onset asynchrony and mistuning. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 2352-2364.
27. Hukin, R.W. & Darwin, C.J. 1995. Comparison of the effect of onset asynchrony on auditory grouping in pitch matching and vowel identification. Percept Psychophys, 57, 191-196.
28. Hukin, R.W. & Darwin, C.J. 2000. Spatial cues to grouping in the Wessel illusion. Brit J Audiol , 34, 109.
29. Huron, D. 2001. Tone and voice: A derivation of the rules of voiceleading from perceptual principles. Music Percepn , 19, 1-64.
30. Klatt, D.H. 1985. A shift in formant frequencies is not the same as a shift in the center of gravity of a multi-formant energy concentration. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, S7.
31. Miller, G.A. 1947. The masking of speech. Psychol Bull , 44, 105-129.
32. Miller, G.A. & Licklider, J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167-173.
33. Moore, B.C.J., Glasberg, B.R. & Peters, R.W. 1985. Relative dominance of individual partials in determining the pitch of complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 1853-1860.
34. Moore, B.C.J., Glasberg, B.R. & Peters, R.W. 1986. Thresholds for hearing mistuned partials as separate tones in harmonic complexes. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 479-483.
35. Plomp, R. 1967. Pitch of complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am, 41, 1526-1533.
36. Remez, R.E., Rubin, P.E., Pisoni, D.B. & Carrell, T.D. 1981. Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212, 947-950.
37. Rhebergen, K.S. & Versfeld, N.J. 2005. A Speech Intelligibility Indexbased approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2181-92.
38. Risset, J.-C. & Wessel, D.L. 1982. Exploration of timbre by analysis and synthesis. In D. Deutsch (ed.), The Psychology of Music. New York: Academic.
39. Roweis, S. 2004. Automatic speech processing by inference in generative models. In P.L. Divenyi (ed.), Speech Separation by Humans and Machines. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40. Sach, A.J. & Bailey, P.J. 2004. Some characteristics of auditory spatial attention revealed using rhythmic masking release. Percept Psychophys, 66, 1379-87.
41. Shackleton, T.M. & Meddis, R. 1992. The role of interaural time difference and fundamental frequency difference in the identification of concurrent vowel pairs. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 3579-3581.
42. Shinn-Cunningham, B.G., Kopco, N. & Martin, T.J. 2005. Localizing nearby sound sources in a classroom: binaural room impulse responses. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 3100-15.
43. Turgeon, M., Bregman, A.S. & Ahad, P.A. 2002. Rhythmic masking release: contribution of cues for perceptual organization to the crossspectral fusion of concurrent narrow-band noises. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1819-31.
44. Varga A.P. & Moore R.K. (1990) Hidden Markov Model decomposition of speech and noise. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. Albuquerque.
45. Varga A.P. & Moore R.K. (1991) Simultaneous recognition of concurrent speech signals using hidden Markov model decomposition. Proc. ESCA EUROSPEECH conference. Genova Italy, September.
46. Wang, D.L. 2004. An ideal binary mask as the computational goal of auditory scene analysis. In P.L. Divenyi (ed.), Speech Separation by Humans and Machines. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47. Wang, D.L. 2005. An ideal binary mask as the computational goal of auditory scene analysis. In P.L. Divenyi (ed.), Speech Separation by Humans and Machines. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
48. Wessel, D.L. 1979. Timbre space as a musical control structure. Comp Mus J, 3, 45-52.
49. Wightman, F.L. & Kistler, D.J. 1992. The dominant role of lowfrequency interaural time differences in sound localization. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 1648-1661.
50. Woods, W.A. & Colburn, S. 1992. Test of a model of auditory object formation using intensity and interaural time difference discriminations. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 2894-2902.