Masking release due to linguistic and phonetic dissimilarity between the target and masker speech

American Journal of Audiology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 157-164

  Calandruccio, Lauren ^a   Brouwer, Susanne ^b   Van Engen, Kristin J ^b,c   Dhar, Sumitrajit ^b   Bradlow, Ann R ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Masking; Native and nonnative English speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHONETICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT; ARTICLE; MASKING; NATIVE AND NONNATIVE ENGLISH SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHONETICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

MASKING; NATIVE AND NONNATIVE ENGLISH SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84879455265     PISSN: 10590889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2013/12-0072)     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
2. Bench, J., Kowal, A., & Bamford, J. (1979). The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. British Journal of Audiology, 13(3), 108-112.
3. Bernstein, J. G., & Grant, K. W. (2009). Auditory and auditory- visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(5), 3358-3372.
4. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.15) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
5. Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6. Brouwer, S., Van Engen, K. J., Calandruccio, L., Dhar, S., & Bradlow A. R. (2012). Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: Language familiarity and semantic content. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(2), 1449-1464.
7. Calandruccio, L., Dhar, S., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(2), 860-869.
8. Calandruccio, L., Van Engen, K., Dhar, S., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). The effectiveness of clear speech as a masker. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(6), 1458-1471.
9. Davidson, S. A., Gilkey, R. H., Colburn, H. S., & Carney, L. H. (2006). Binaural detection with narrowband and wideband reproducible noise maskers. III. Monaural and diotic detection and model results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 2258-2275.
10. Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (Eds.). (2011). The world atlas of language structures online. Munich, Germany: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at http://wals.info/.
11. Felty, R. A., Buchwald, A., & Pisoni, D. B. (2009). Adaptation to frozen babble in spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(3), EL93-EL97
12. 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(4), 1725-1736.
13. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., & Helfer, K. S. (2001). Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(5), 2112-2122.
14. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., & Helfer, K. S. (2004). Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(5), 2246-2256.
15. Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., & Cooke, M. (2006). Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 2445-2454.
16. Helfer, K. S., & Freyman, R. L. (2008). Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear and Hearing, 29(1), 87-98.
17. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Subcommittee. (1969). IEEE Subcommittee on subjective measurements IEEE recommended practices for speech quality measurements. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 227-246.
18. Li, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
19. Lin, H., & Wang, Q. (2005). Mandarin rhythm: An acoustic study. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 17, 127-140.
20. Miller, G. A., & Licklider, J. C. R. (1950). The intelligibility of interrupted speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 167-173.
21. Nye, P. W., & Gaitenby, J. H. (1974). The intelligibility of synthetic monosyllabic words in short, syntactically normal sentences, Status Report on Sp. Res. SR-37/38. Haskins Laboratory
22. Reel, L. (2009). Selective auditory attention in adults: Effects of rhythmic structure of the competing language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX.
23. Simpson, S., & Cooke, M. P. (2005). Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2775-2778.
24. Tukey, J. W. (1953). Some selected quick and easy methods of statistical analysis. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 16 (2), 88-97.
25. Van Engen, K. J. (2010). Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble. Speech Communication, 52(11-12), 943-953.
26. Van Engen, K. J., & Bradlow, A. R. (2007). Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(1), 519-526.