Discrimination and streaming of speech sounds based on differences in interaural and spectral cues

David, Marion; Lavandier, Mathieu; Grimault, Nicolas; Oxenham, Andrew J.

doi:10.1121/1.5003809

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At this point, it remains an open question as to why listeners use a memory buffer scheme for fricatives but not for other speech sounds. However, given the difficulties in a reliability account, and the fact that fricative‐vowel syllables can stream (David et al., ,b), the vowel‐as‐organizer account may offer the most coherent account, particularly given converging evidence for that from other domains (Diehl et al., ). However, a definitive test of this awaits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Challenging this are a number of studies examining auditory streaming in sequences of fricative-vowel pairs. In these studies, FV syllables are heard as a sequence with two streams indicated by the fact that alternating syllables were spoken by different talkers (David, Lavandier, Grimault, & Oxenham, 2017b), or at different locations (David, Lavandier, Grimault, & Oxenham, 2017a). These have generally shown that listeners can group fricatives with their vowels into a single coherent stream.…”

Section: Is It Even Speech? Auditory Groupingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech unfolds over time and the cues for even a single phoneme are rarely available simultaneously. Consequently, to recognize a single phoneme listeners must integrate material over several hundred milliseconds. Prior work contrasts two accounts: 1) a memory buffer account in which listeners accumulate auditory information in memory and only access higher level representations (i.e., lexical representations) when sufficient information has arrived; and 2) an immediate integration scheme in which lexical representations can be partially activated on the basis of early cues and then updated when more information arises. These studies have uniformly shown evidence for immediate integration for a variety of phonetic distinctions. We attempted to extend this to fricatives, a class of speech sounds which requires not only temporal integration of asynchronous cues (the frication, followed by the formant transitions 150–350 msec later), but also integration across different frequency bands, and compensation for contextual factors like coarticulation. Eye-movements in the visual world paradigm and showed clear evidence for a memory buffer. Results were replicated in five experiments, ruling out methodological factors and tying the release of the buffer to the onset of the vowel. These findings support a general auditory account for speech by suggesting that the acoustic nature of particular speech sounds may have large effects on how they are processed. It also has major implications for theories of auditory and speech perception by raising the possibility of a encapsulated memory buffers in early auditory processing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Is It Even Speech? Auditory Groupingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Challenging this are a number of streaming on fricative-vowel pairs. In these studies, FV syllables are heard as a sequence with two streams indicated by the fact that alternating syllables were spoken by different talkers (David, Lavandier, Grimault, & Oxenham, 2017b), or at different locations (David, Lavandier, Grimault, & Oxenham, 2017a). These have generally shown that listeners can group fricatives with their vowels into a single coherent stream.…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…buffer strategy for fricatives but not for other speech sounds. However, given the difficulties in a reliability account, and the fact that fricative-vowel syllables can stream (David et al, 2017a(David et al, , 2017b, the vowel-as-organizer account may offer the most coherent account, particularly given converging evidence for that from other domains (Diehl et al, 1987). However, a definitive test of this awaits.…”

Section: Summary At This Point It Remains An Open Question As To Whmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprint: What are you waiting for? Real-time integration of cues for fricatives suggests encapsulated auditory memory.

Galle¹,

Klein-Packard²,

Schreiber³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech unfolds over time and the cues for even a single phoneme are rarely available simultaneously. Consequently, to recognize a single phoneme listeners must integrate material over several hundred milliseconds. Prior work contrasts two accounts: 1) a memory buffer account in which listeners accumulate auditory information in memory and only access higher level representations (i.e. lexical representations) when sufficient information has arrived; and 2) an immediate integration strategy in which lexical representations can be partially activated on the basis of early cues and then updated when more information arises. These studies have uniformly shown evidence for immediate integration for a variety of phonetic distinctions. We attempted to extend this to fricatives, a class of speech sounds which requires not only temporal integration of asynchronous cues (the frication, followed by the formant transitions 150-350 msec later), but also integration across different frequency bands, and compensation for contextual factors like coarticulation. Experiments employed eye-movements in the visual world paradigm and showed clear evidence for a memory buffer. Results were replicated in five experiments, ruling out methodological factors and tying the release of the buffer to the onset of the vowel. These findings support a general auditory account for speech by suggesting that the acoustic nature of particular speech sounds may have large effects on how they are processed. It also has major implications for theories of auditory and speech perception by raising the possibility of an encapsulated memory buffer in early auditory processing.

show abstract

“…It is carried out based on the conjunction of multiple stimulus-features including pitch, timbre and temporal structure, with spatial cues such as ITD and ILD contributing as well albeit to a lesser degree (David et al, 2017; Snyder and Elhilali, 2017; Stainsby et al, 2011). Previous studies have shown that segregation of two competing speakers is relatively good, but that performance drops sharply as the number of concurrent speakers increase beyond two (Brungart et al, 2001; Humes et al, 2017; Rosen et al, 2013; Simpson and Cooke, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Spatial Separation on Selective and Distributed Attention to Speech

Pinto

Agmon

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Processing speech in multi-speaker environments poses substantial challenges to the human perceptual and attention system. Moreover, different contexts may require employing different listening strategies. For instance, in some cases individuals pay attention Selectively to one speaker and attempt to ignore all other task-irrelevant sounds, whereas other contexts may require listeners to Distribute their attention among several speakers. Spatial and spectral acoustic cues both play an important role in assisting listeners to segregate concurrent speakers. However, how these cues interact with varying demands for allocating top-down attention is less clear. In the current study, we test and compare how spatial cues are utilized to benefit performance on these different types of attentional tasks. To this end, participants listened to a concoction of two or four speakers, presented either as emanating from different locations in space or with no spatial separation. In separate trials, participants were required to employ different listening strategies, and detect a target-word spoken either by one pre-defined speaker (Selective Attention) or spoken by any of the speakers (Distributed Attention). Results indicate that the presence of spatial cues improved performance, particularly in the two-speaker condition, which is in line with the important role of spatial cues in stream segregation. However, spatial cues provided similar benefits to performance under Selective and Distributed attention. This pattern suggests that despite the advantage of spatial cues for stream segregation, they were nonetheless insufficient for directing a more focused ‘attentional spotlight’ towards the location of a designated speaker in the Selective attention condition.

show abstract

Discrimination and streaming of speech sounds based on differences in interaural and spectral cues

Cited by 10 publications

References 34 publications

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

Preprint: What are you waiting for? Real-time integration of cues for fricatives suggests encapsulated auditory memory.

The Role of Spatial Separation on Selective and Distributed Attention to Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About