Increase in speech recognition due to linguistic mismatch between target and masker speech: Monolingual and simultaneous bilingual performance

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1089-1097

  Calandruccio, Lauren ^a,c   Zhou, Haibo ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Informational masking; Linguistic masking; Simultaneous bilingual

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MULTILINGUALISM; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PHONETICS; RECOGNITION; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; THEORETICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MULTILINGUALISM; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHONETICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84902790696     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/2013_JSLHR-H-12-0378     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alexiou, N. (2013). Greek immigration in the United States: A historical overview. Retrieved from http://www.qc.cuny.edu/ Academics/Degrees/DSS/Sociology/GreekOralHistory/Pages/ Research.aspx
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry [Guidelines]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy
3. Arvaniti, A. (2007). Greek phonetics: The state of the art. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 8, 97-208.
4. Bernstein, J. G., & Grant, K. W. (2009). Auditory and auditoryvisual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normalhearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustistical Society of America, 125, 3358-3372.
5. Bialystok, E., & Barac, R. (2012). Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages for metalinguistic awareness and executive control. Cognition, 122, 67-73. doi:10.1016/J.Cognition.2011. 08.003
6. Bilger, R. C., Nuetzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M., & Rzeczkowski, C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 32-48.
7. Black, J. W., & Hast, M. H. (1962). Speech reception with altering signal. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 70-75.
8. Brouwer, S., Van Engen, K. J., Calandruccio, L., & Bradlow, A. R. (2012). Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: Language familiarity and semantic content. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 1449-1464. doi:10.1121/1.3675943
9. Brungart, D. S., Chang, P. S., Simpson, B. D., & Wang, D. (2006). Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequnecy segregation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 4007-4018.
10. Calandruccio, L., Dhar, S., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). Speech-onspeech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 860-869. doi:10.1121/1.3458857
11. Calandruccio, L., & Smiljanić, R. (2012). New sentence recognition materials developed using a basic non-native English lexicon. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1342-1355. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0260)
12. 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, 1458-1471. doi:10.1044/ 1092-4388(2010/09-0210)
13. Chan, C. L. (2012). NU-subDB: Northwestern University Subject Database [Web application]. Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University. Retrieved from https:babel.ling. northwestern.edu/nusubdb2/
14. Christiansen, C., & Dau, T. (2012). Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, 1655-1666.
15. Cooke, M., Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., & Barker, J. (2008). The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 414-427. doi:10.1121/1.2804952
16. Cycling ' 74. (2011). Max5 (Version 5) [Computer software]. Walnut, CA: Author. Available from http://cycling74.com
17. Felt Tip. (2011). Sound Studio (Version 4.2) [Computer software]. New York, NY: Author. Available from http://felttip.com/ss/
18. Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1725-1736.
19. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., & Helfer, K. S. (2001). Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2112-2122.
20. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., & Helfer, K. S. (2004). Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 2246-2256.
21. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
22. Gat, I. B., & Keith, R. W. (1978). An effect of linguistic experience: Auditory word discrimination by native and non-native speakers of English. Audiology, 17, 339-345.
23. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
24. Mayo, L. H., Florentine, M., & Buus, S. (1997). Age of secondlanguage acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 686-693.
25. Rhebergen, K. S., Versfeld, N. J., & Dreschler, W. A. (2005). Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1274-1277.
26. Rogers, C. L., Lister, J. J., Febo, D. M., Besing, J. M., & Abrams, H. B. (2006). Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 465-485. doi:10.1017/ S014271640606036x
27. Rosen, S., Souza, P., Ekelund, C., & Majeed, A. A. (2013). Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: Effects of talker number and noise vocoding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133, 2431-2443.
28. Rothauser, E. H., Chapman, W. D., Guttman, N., Nordby, K. S., Silbiger, H. R., Urbanek, G. E., & Weinstock, M. (1969). IEEE recommended practices for speech quality measurements. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 225-246.
29. Shi, L. F. (2010). Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 821-835. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0081)
30. Shin, H. B., & Ortman, J. M. (2011, April 21). Language projections: 2010 to 2020. Paper presented at the Federal Forecasters Conference, Washington, DC.
31. Simpson, S. A., & Cooke, M. (2005). Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2775-2778.
32. Stuart, A., Zhang, J., & Swink, S. (2010). Reception thresholds in quiet and noise for monolingual English and bilingaul Mandarin-English listeners. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21, 239-248.
33. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 455-462.
34. Tun, P. A., O'Kane, G., & Wingfield, A. (2002). Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychology and Aging, 17, 453-467.
35. Van Engen, K. J. (2010). Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first-and second-language multitalker babble. Speech Communication, 52, 943-953. doi:10.1016/ j.specom.2010.05.002
36. Van Engen, K. J., & Bradlow, A. R. (2007). Sentence recognition in native-and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 519-526.
37. van Wijngaarden, S. J., Steeneken, H. J., & Houtgast, T. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 3004-3013.
38. von Hapsburg, D., Champlin, C. A., & Shetty, S. R. (2004). Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish / English) and monolingual (English) listeners. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15, 88-98.
39. von Hapsburg, D., & Peña, E. D. (2002). Understanding bilingualism and its impact on speech audiometry. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 202-213.