Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech for native and nonnative English speakers

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 355-366

  Calandruccio, Lauren ^a,c   Bradlow, Ann R ^b   Dhar, Sumitrajit ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bilingualism; Informational masking; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIOLOGIST; BILINGUALISM; BONE CONDUCTION; ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE; HEARING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; IMMIGRATION; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LINGUISTICS; MASKING; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SOUND PRESSURE; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; LANGUAGE; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY;

HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHONETICS; SPEECH;

EID: 84896379081     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.25.4.7     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2010) Specifications for audiometers 3.6. Available at: www.ansi.org
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2005) Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Available at: www.asha.org/policy.
3. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59:390-412.
4. Bacon SP, Opie JM, Montoya DY. (1998) The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41(3):549-563.
5. Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. (1979) The BKB (Bamford-Kowal Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 13(3):108-112.
6. Bent T, Bradlow AR. (2003) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. J Acoust Soc Am 114(3):1600-1610.
7. Bernstein JG, Grant KW. (2009) Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 125(5):3358-3372.
8. Best V, Marrone N, Mason CR, Kidd G Jr. (2012) The influence of non-spatial factors on measures of spatial release from masking. J Acoust Soc Am 131(4):3103-3110.
9. Boersma P, Weenink D. (2012) Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.15. Available at: http://www.praat.or
10. Brouwer S, Van Engen KJ, Calandruccio L, Bradlow AR. (2012) Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content. J Acoust Soc Am 131(2):1449-1464.
11. Calandruccio L, Dhar S, Bradlow AR. (2010a) Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. J Acoust Soc Am 128(2):860-869.
12. Calandruccio L, Van Engen K, Dhar S, Bradlow AR. (2010b) The effectiveness of clear speech as a masker. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53(6):1458-1471.
13. Calandruccio L, Zhou H. (2014) Increase in speech recognition due to linguistic mismatch between target and masker speech: monolingual and simultaneous bilingual performance. J Speech Lang Hear Res 57(3):1089-1097.
14. Carhart R, Tillman TW, Greetis ES. (1969) Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. J Acoust Soc Am 45(3):694-703.
15. Durlach NI, Mason CR, Kidd G Jr, Arbogast TL, Colburn HS, Shinn-Cunningham BG. (2003) Note on informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am 113(6):2984-2987.
16. Festen JM, 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(4):1725-1736.
17. Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. (2001) Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 109(5 Pt 1):2112-2122.
18. Garcia Lecumberri ML, Cooke M. (2006) Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 119(4):2445-2454.
19. Hawkins JE, Stevens SS. (1950) The masking of pure tones and of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am 22(1):6-13.
20. IEEE Subcommittee on subjective measurements. (1969) IEEE recommended practices for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust. 17, 227-46.
21. Jin SH, Nelson PB. (2010) Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution. J Acoust Soc Am 128(2):881-889.
22. Kidd G Jr, Mason CR, Best V, Marrone N. (2010) Stimulus factors influencing spatial release from speech-on-speech masking. J Acoust Soc Am 128(4):1965-1978.
23. Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. (2005) Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 118(3 Pt 1):1274-1277.
24. Rimikis S, Smiljanic R, Calandruccio L. (2013) Non-native English speaker performance on the Basic English Lexicon (BEL) sentences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56(3):792-804.
25. Shi LF. (2009) Normal-hearing English-as-a-second-language listeners' recognition of English words in competing signals. Int J Audiol 48(5):260-270.
26. Studebaker GA. (1985) A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28(3):455-462.
27. Tun PA, O'Kane G, Wingfield A. (2002) Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging 17(3):453-467.
28. US Census Bureau. (2012) State and county QuickFacts. Data derived from population estimates, American community survey, census of population and housing, state and county housing unit estimates, county business patterns, nonemployer statistics, economic census, survey of business owners, building permits, consolidated federal funds report. Available at: http://quickfacts. census.gov/qfd/states/36/36081.html
29. Van Engen KJ. (2010) Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble. Speech Commun 52(11-12):943-953.
30. Van Engen KJ, Bradlow AR. (2007) Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am 121(1):519-526.
31. van Wijngaarden SJ, Steeneken HJ, Houtgast T. (2002) Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 111(4):1906-1916.