Envelope and intensity based prediction of psychoacoustic masking and speech intelligibility

Abstract

Human auditory perception and speech intelligibility have been successfully described based on the two concepts of spectral masking and amplitude modulation (AM) masking. The power-spectrum model (PSM) [Patterson and Moore (1986). Frequency Selectivity in Hearing, pp. 123-177] accounts for effects of spectral masking and critical bandwidth, while the envelope power-spectrum model (EPSM) [Ewert and Dau (2000). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108, 1181-1196] has been successfully applied to AM masking and discrimination. Both models extract the long-term (envelope) power to calculate signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). Recently, the EPSM has been applied to speech intelligibility (SI) considering the short-term envelope SNR on various time scales (multi-resolution speech-based envelope power-spectrum model; mr-sEPSM) to account for SI in fluctuating noise [Jørgensen, Ewert, and Dau (2013). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 436-446]. Here, a generalized auditory model is suggested combining the classical PSM and the mr-sEPSM to jointly account for psychoacoustics and speech intelligibility. The model was extended to consider the local AM depth in conditions with slowly varying signal levels, and the relative role of long-term and short-term SNR was assessed. The suggested generalized power-spectrum model is shown to account for a large variety of psychoacoustic data and to predict speech intelligibility in various types of background noise.

A two‐path model of auditory modulation detection using temporal fine structure and envelope cues

“…This is equivalent to an envelope signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR E ), as used in the envelope power spectrum model (EPSM; Ewert & Dau, ) and later versions ( e.g . Jørgensen et al ., ; Biberger & Ewert, ). Following Ewert & Dau (), the SNR E was then converted to a detectability index d’ E,i in each of the auditory channels, i , which were optimally combined across channels to yield the final .…”

“…Viemeister, ; Dau et al ., ; Ewert & Dau, ) and the most recent attempts successfully described a wide range of behavioural data ( e.g . Piechowiak et al ., ; Jepsen et al ., ; Dau et al ., ; Biberger & Ewert, , ). In comparison, very few modelling attempts have been made to model for FM sensitivity (Hartmann & Klein, ; Moore & Sek, ; Ernst & Moore, ; Paraouty et al ., ).…”

Mechanisms of spectrotemporal modulation detection for normal- and hearing-impaired listeners

“…Historically, psychoacoustical studies of suprathreshold auditory mechanisms have investigated these two dimensions separately (Miller et al, 2018) using signals modulated in instantaneous amplitude (AM), frequency (FM), or spectral ripples (Houtgast, 1989; Bacon & Grantham, 1989; Moore & Sek, 1996; Wallaert et al, 2018; Eddins & Bero, 2007; Ozmera et al, 2018). Results from these studies using AM and FM signals have led to the development of functional auditory models such as the (temporal) modulation filter-bank (Dau et al, 1997), the current gold standard for simulating suprathreshold processing in the auditory system (Biberger & Ewert, 2016). However, it remains unclear whether this model still constitutes a good account of how the auditory system processes complex signals showing joint spectral and temporal modulations as in the case of speech (Singh & Theunissen, 2003; Chi et al, 1999; Elhilali et al, 2003; Venezia et al, 2016, 2019); see Figure 1A.…”

Development of temporal auditory processing in childhood: Changes in efficiency rather than temporal-modulation selectivity

“…Recent studies conducted with adults showed that the temporal modulations belonging to a background noise (e.g., a competing voice, a babble, a steady or a fluctuating noise) interfere with the temporal modulations of speech. The development of this phenomenon, called "modulation masking" (Houtgast, 1989;Bacon and Grantham, 1989;Dau, Kollmeier, & Kohlrausch, 1997a;Biberger & Ewert, 2016Jørgensen & Dau, 2011;Jørgensen, Ewert, & Dau, 2013;Stone, Füllgrabe, Mackinnon, & Moore, 2011), and its relationship with speech intelligibility in noise has not been explored yet in childhood. The goal of the present study is to determine any changes in perceptual factors affecting modulation masking during development and clarify this relationship.…”