Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release

Gnansia, Dan; Jourdes, Vincent; Lorenzi, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2008.01.012

Cited by 58 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained here with unprocessed speech can be compared to other studies that have employed square-wave or sine-wave amplitude modulations in the range of 8 to 16 Hz (e.g., F€ ullgrabe et al, 2006;Lorenzi et al, 2006b;Gnansia et al, 2008;Gnansia et al, 2009). The MR of 47 percentage points (corresponding to a NMR of 79%) observed in the current study for U speech is consistent with the range of MR values reported across the studies cited above (roughly 30 to 65 percentage points).…”

Section: Masking Releasementioning

confidence: 59%

“…Substantial values of MR (39 percentage points) and NMR (65%) were also obtained with 40-band E speech, but these were the lowest among the six speech types. Although previous studies employing a relatively small number of wideband vocoder channels have reported negligible MR (e.g., F€ ullgrabe et al, 2006 with a 4-channel vocoder and Gnansia et al, 2009 with an 8-channel vocoder), other experimental conditions employing 16-or 32-channel vocoders have reported MR in the range of roughly 10 to 25 percentage points (F€ ullgrabe et al, 2006;Swaminathan, 2010;Gnansia et al, 2008;Gnansia et al, 2009). The larger MR reported here for E speech may be due to differences in experimental conditions including our use of square-wave modulation versus the sine-wave modulation employed in these previous studies, a 40-channel vocoder, and a more adverse SNR of À10 dB.…”

Section: Masking Releasementioning

confidence: 91%

“…ENV cues have been shown to support robust speech identification in quiet (Smith et al, 2002) but they are insufficient when background sounds are present, particularly when the background is fluctuating. In a fluctuating background, speech reception of NH listeners is reduced when TFS cues are eliminated by the use of vocoders that reduce speech to slowly varying fluctuations in amplitude (Qin and Oxenham, 2003;F€ ullgrabe et al, 2006;Gilbert et al, 2007;Gnansia et al, 2008). Thus, TFS cues may play a role in enhancing the perception of NH listeners in fluctuating background noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consonant identification in noise using Hilbert-transform temporal fine-structure speech and recovered-envelope speech for listeners with normal and impaired hearing

Léger

Reed

Desloge

et al. 2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consonant-identification ability was examined in normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) listeners in the presence of steady-state and 10-Hz square-wave interrupted speech-shaped noise. The Hilbert transform was used to process speech stimuli (16 consonants in a-C-a syllables) to present envelope cues, temporal fine-structure (TFS) cues, or envelope cues recovered from TFS speech. The performance of the HI listeners was inferior to that of the NH listeners both in terms of lower levels of performance in the baseline condition and in the need for higher signal-to-noise ratio to yield a given level of performance. For NH listeners, scores were higher in interrupted noise than in steady-state noise for all speech types (indicating substantial masking release). For HI listeners, masking release was typically observed for TFS and recovered-envelope speech but not for unprocessed and envelope speech. For both groups of listeners, TFS and recovered-envelope speech yielded similar levels of performance and consonant confusion patterns. The masking release observed for TFS and recovered-envelope speech may be related to level effects associated with the manner in which the TFS processing interacts with the interrupted noise signal, rather than to the contributions of TFS cues per se.

show abstract

Section: Masking Releasementioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Masking Releasementioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consonant identification in noise using Hilbert-transform temporal fine-structure speech and recovered-envelope speech for listeners with normal and impaired hearing

Léger

Reed

Desloge

et al. 2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While envelope cues are sufficient to achieve good speech reception in quiet ͑e.g., Shannon et al, 1995͒, TFS cues may be required to ensure good speech reception in noise ͑e.g., Nie et al, 2005;Lorenzi and Moore, 2008͒. In particular, it has been suggested that deficits in TFS coding might account for the limited ability of HI listeners to take advantage of amplitude fluctuations in a noise background, i.e., to listen in the dips of a fluctuating interferer ͑e.g., Qin and Oxenham, 2003;Lorenzi et al, 2006;Gnansia et al, 2008͒. However, the large variability of performance that is commonly observed across HI listeners makes it difficult to compare results across studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing

Strelcyk

Dau

2009

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

196

265

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure (TFS) processing, and speech reception were assessed for six normal-hearing (NH) listeners, ten sensorineurally hearing-impaired (HI) listeners with similar high-frequency losses, and two listeners with an obscure dysfunction (OD). TFS processing was investigated at low frequencies in regions of normal hearing, through measurements of binaural masked detection, tone lateralization, and monaural frequency modulation (FM) detection. Lateralization and FM detection thresholds were measured in quiet and in background noise. Speech reception thresholds were obtained for full-spectrum and lowpass-filtered sentences with different interferers. Both the HI listeners and the OD listeners showed poorer performance than the NH listeners in terms of frequency selectivity, TFS processing, and speech reception. While a correlation was observed between the monaural and binaural TFS-processing deficits in the HI listeners, no relation was found between TFS processing and frequency selectivity. The effect of noise on TFS processing was not larger for the HI listeners than for the NH listeners. Finally, TFS-processing performance was correlated with speech reception in a two-talker background and lateralized noise, but not in amplitude-modulated noise. The results provide constraints for future models of impaired auditory signal processing.

show abstract

“…The weighting compensated for imperfect superposition of the bands' impulse responses at the desired group delay. The weights were optimized numerically to achieve a flat frequency response (Hohmann 2002; see also Gnansia et al 2008Gnansia et al , 2009Gnansia et al , 2010 for further details).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal-Envelope Reconstruction for Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Lorenzi

Wallaert

Gnansia³

et al. 2012

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies suggest that normal-hearing listeners maintain robust speech intelligibility despite severe degradations of amplitude-modulation (AM) cues, by using temporal-envelope information recovered from broadband frequency-modulation (FM) speech cues at the output of cochlear filters. This study aimed to assess whether cochlear damage affects this capacity to reconstruct temporal-envelope information from FM. This was achieved by measuring the ability of 40 normalhearing listeners and 41 listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss to identify syllables processed to degrade AM cues while leaving FM cues intact within three broad frequency bands spanning the range 65-3,645 Hz. Stimuli were presented at 65 dB SPL for both normalhearing listeners and hearing-impaired listeners. They were presented as such or amplified using a modified half-gain rule for hearing-impaired listeners. Hearingimpaired listeners showed significantly poorer identification scores than normal-hearing listeners at both presentation levels. However, the deficit shown by hearing-impaired listeners for amplified stimuli was relatively modest. Overall, hearing-impaired data and the results of a simulation study were consistent with a poorer-than-normal ability to reconstruct temporalenvelope information resulting from a broadening of cochlear filters by a factor ranging from 2 to 4. These results suggest that mild-to-moderate cochlear hearing loss has only a modest detrimental effect on peripheral, temporal-envelope reconstruction mechanisms.

show abstract

Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release

Cited by 58 publications

References 47 publications

Consonant identification in noise using Hilbert-transform temporal fine-structure speech and recovered-envelope speech for listeners with normal and impaired hearing

Consonant identification in noise using Hilbert-transform temporal fine-structure speech and recovered-envelope speech for listeners with normal and impaired hearing

Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing

Temporal-Envelope Reconstruction for Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About