Relationship between speech recognition in noise and sparseness

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 75-82

  Li, Guoping ^a   Lutman, Mark E ^a   Wang, Shouyan ^a   Bleeck, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Babble; Cocktail party effect; Glimpsing; Speech intelligibility index

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; RECOGNITION; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84862917806     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2011.625984     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. ANSI S3.5 (1969) Methods for the calculation of the articulation index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
2. ANSI S3.5 (1997) Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Barlow H. 2001. Redundancy reduction revisited. Network, 12, 241-253. (Pubitemid 33626945)
4. Bell A.J. & Sejnowski T.J. 1997. The independent components of natural scenes are edge filters. Vision Res, 37, 3327-38. (Pubitemid 27493806)
5. Bregman A.S. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. Cambridge: MIT Press.
6. Bronkhorst A.W. & Plomp R. 1992. Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 3132-3139.
7. Cherry E.C. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 25, 975-979.
8. Cooke M. 2003 Glimpsing speech. J Phon, 31, 579-584. (Pubitemid 37495930)
9. Cooke M. 2006. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1562-1573. (Pubitemid 43326025)
10. Darwin C. 2008. Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philos Trans R SocLond BBiol Sci, 363, 1011-1021. (Pubitemid 351158930)
11. De Leon P.L. 2000. Short-time kurtosis of speech signals with application to co-channel speech separation. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2, 831-833. (Pubitemid 33059071)
12. Dirks D.D. & Bower D. 1970. Effect of forward and backward masking on speech Intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 47, 1003-1008.
13. Festen J.M. 1993. Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. J Acoust Soc Am, 94, 1295-1300. (Pubitemid 23264205)
14. Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725-1736.
15. Field D.J. 1994. What is the goal of sensory coding? Neural Computation, 6, 559-601.
16. Gardner B. & Martin K. 1994. HRTF measurements of a KEMAR dummy-head microphone. MIT Media Lab Perceptual Computing Technical Report. Cambridge, MIT Media Laboratory.
17. Garofolo J.S., Lamel L.F., Fisher W.M., Fiscus J.G., Pallett D.S. et al. 1993. DARPA TIMIT Acoustic Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus CD-ROM. Gaithersburg, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
18. Gilbert J.R., Moler C. & Schreiber R. 1992. Sparse matrices in Matlab: Design and implementation. Siam J Matrix Anal A, 13, 333-356.
19. Gazor S. & Zhang W. 2003. Speech probability distribution. IEEE Sig Proc Letters, 10, 204-207.
20. Gnansia D., Jourdes V. & Lorenzi C. 2008. Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release. Hearing Res, 239, 60-68.
21. Hygge S., Ronnberg J., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 1992. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res, 35, 208-215.
22. Hyvarinen A. & Oja E. 2000. Independent component analysis: Algorithms and applications. Neural Netw, 13, 411-430. (Pubitemid 30447427)
23. James W.K., Robert H.G., Scott K.I. & Brian D.S. 1999. The cocktail party effect with conversational speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 1025.
24. Leblanc J. P. & De Leon P.L. 1998. Speech separation by kurtosis maximization. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2, 1029-1032.
25. Lewicki M.S. 2002. Efficient coding of natural sounds. Nature Neurosci, 5, 356-363. (Pubitemid 34279816)
26. Li N. & Loizou P.C. 2007. Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1165-1172. (Pubitemid 47205513)
27. Miller G.A. & Licklider J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167-173.
28. Nemer E., Goubran R. & Mahmoud S. 1999. SNR estimation of speech signals using subbands and fourth-order statistics. IEEE Signal Process Lett, 6, 171-174.
29. Olshausen B.A. & Field D.J. 2004. Sparse coding of sensory inputs. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 14, 481-487. (Pubitemid 39078497)
30. Olshausen B.A. & O'Connor K.N. 2002. A new window on sound. Nat Neurosci, 5, 292-294. (Pubitemid 34279804)
31. Paul B. & David W. 2009. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 5.1.05). Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.praat.org/
32. Pavlovic C.V. 1987. Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech-intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 413-422.
33. Peters R.W., Moore B.C.J. & Baer T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally-hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577-587. (Pubitemid 28042432)
34. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise-level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333-1342.
35. Rhebergen K.S. & Versfeld N.J. 2005. A speech intelligibility index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2181-2192. (Pubitemid 40570476)
36. Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J., de Laat J.A.P.M. & Dreschler W.A. 2010. Modelling the speech reception threshold in non-stationary noise in hearing-impaired listeners as a function of level. Int J Audiol, 49, 856-865.
37. Rice J.A. 1995. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Second edition. Belmont: Duxbury Press.
38. Shannon R.V., Jensvold A., Padilla M., Robert M.E. & Wang X.S. 1999 Consonant recordings for speech testing. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, L71-L74.
39. Simpson S.A. & Cooke M. 2005. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 2775-2778. (Pubitemid 41618972)
40. Stephen R. & Richard E. 2001. Independent Component Analysis: Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
41. Stilp C.E. & Kluender K.R. 2010.Cochlea-scaled entropy, not consonants, vowels, or time, best predicts speech intelligibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107, 12387-12392.
42. Stone J.V. 1993. Independent Component Analysis: A Tutorial Introduction, London: Bradford Books.
43. Wagner K.C. & Brand T. 2005 Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144-156 (Pubitemid 40694910)
44. Wang D.L., Kjems U., Pedersen M.S., Boldt J.B. & Lunner T. 2009. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 2336-2347.