Free-field release from masking

Saberi, Kourosh; Dostal, Lynda; Sadralodabai, Toktam; Bull, Vicki; Perrott, David R.

doi:10.1121/1.401927

Cited by 88 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All of the above mentioned researches discuss the masking release due to directional separation in the horizontal plane. On the other hand, Saberi et al [24] discussed one in the vertical median plane. Because there are no interaural differences for sound presented in the vertical median plane, it is thought to be less advantageous in release from masking due to spatial separation.…”

Section: Release From Masking Due To Separation Of the Sound Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem

Ebata

2003

Acoust. Sci. & Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there are several factors causing ''cocktail party effect'' after more than half a century of research, the major one is considered to be the spatial separation of the target signal and the interferer. This paper will overview developments of the improvement of performance resulting from the directional separation of the target signal from interferers when listening in a field or through headphones. The basic assumption concerning the cocktail party effect is that there are one or more interfering sound sources in addition to the target signal source. In this situation it is important to remember the selective attention effect, which attenuates the interfering sound by concentrating the attention on a specific signal. Pitch of sound is the simplest cue for selective attention; however, spatial information can also be one. The latter half of this review discusses the effect of spatial filtering and an attention filter on the frequency domain.

show abstract

Section: Release From Masking Due To Separation Of the Sound Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem

Ebata

2003

Acoust. Sci. & Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…of Directional Hearing Aids The binaural advantage for speech recognition in reverberant environments and a background of noise is well documented for both listeners with and without hearing loss (Arsenault and Punch, 1999;Bronkhorst and Plomp, 1989;Bronkhorst and Plomp, 1992;Byrne, 1981;Carhart, 1965;Moncur and Dirks, 1967;Peissig and Kollmeier, 1997;Saberi et al, 1991;Yost, 1997). Three studies have examined the binaural advantage present for listeners fit with directional and omnidirectional hearing aids (eg, Hawkins and Yacullo, 1984;Nabelek and Mason, 1981;Ricketts, 2000c).…”

Section: Monaural Versus Binaural Fittingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directional Hearing Aids

Ricketts

2001

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When asking individuals with hearing impairment to identify the situations for which the most communication difficulty is encountered, listening in nioise seems to be nearly universally mentioned. In fact, I would venture that if queried, almost no patient would refuse the offer of improved levels for sounds of interest in relation to the level of background noise. Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for listeners with al, 1982;Groen, 1969;Killion, 1997;Plomp, 1976;Schum, 1996;Sutter, 1985). Children with hearing impairment appear to be even more negatively effected by poor SNR (Boothroyd et al., 1996;Crandell, 1993;Crandell and Smaldino, 2000;Finitzo-Hieber and Tillman, 1978), leading the American Speech-Language-Hearing-Association (Bess et al., 1996), and others (Berg, 1993;Bistafa and Bradley, 2000;Blair, 1990;Smaldino and Crandell, 1995), to recommend SNRs of at least +15 to +30 dB in educational settings. Unfortunately, most classrooms have SNRs between -6 and + 6 dB, making learning in such environments difficult (Bess et al., 1984;Crandell and Smaldino, 2000).Results from past investigations offer clear evidence that listening in poor SNRs is a significant problem for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Listening problems in noisy environments can be devastating, and lead some listeners with hearing loss to avoid difficult listening situations, resulting in withdrawal and greater isolation, potentially impacting their overall quality of life in a negative way (Jackson, 1997;McCay, 1996;Mulrow et al., 1990). Hearing aids represent a common rehabilitation method for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Hearing aids using standard (omnidirectional) microphones, while effective at increasing audibility for speech and other sounds, are largely ineffective in improving inadequate SNR conditions whether they use analog (Killion and

show abstract

“…Both NDN and DN noises have been shown to affect target signal detection, recognition, and speech intelligibility (e.g., Abouchacra et al, 1998a;1998b;Dirks and Wilson, 1969;Good et al, 1997;Hirsh, 1950;Lorenzi et al, 1999;Saberi et al, 1991;Thompson and Webster, 1964). Specifically, previous findings suggest that as differences between the target signal and noise become less distinct, the target signal is less perceptible and its location more uncertain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, many studies have examined the effect of DN (e.g., speech spectrum, white, pink, narrow band noise) on speech detection, recognition, and intelligibility thresholds, and on detection thresholds of nonspeech signals (e.g., Abouchacra et al, 1998;Bronkhorst, 1990;Carhart et al,1969;Dirks and Wilson, 1969;Good et al, 1997;Hirsh, 1950;Kock, 1950;Saberi et al, 1991). Regardless of signal and noise type, results indicate that thresholds of target signals in noise improve as the separation between the target and DN source increases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Localization of a Speech Target in Nondirectional and Directional Noise as a Function of Sensation Level

Abouchacra¹,

Łȩtowski²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, ARL-TR-6030 SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES* American University of Beirut Medical Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Beirut, Lebanon ABSTRACTBoth the detectability and localizability of a target signal must be considered when the signal is presented with multiple other sounds in an environment. When target and noise sources are separated spatially, target speech detection, recognition, and intelligibility improve substantially. Less information is known, however, about the effect of spatial separation on a listener's localization performance. In the present study, we examine the accuracy of localization judgments in various multiple sound source environments. Localization performance was examined as a function of sensation level (SL) in an attempt to account for changes in signal audibility resulting from changes in directional position of the sound source. A target speech signal (S) was presented at 0-, 6-, 12-, and 18-dB SL in reference to hearing threshold masked by 65-dB A-weighted nondirectional (NDN) or directional (DN) speech-spectrum noise. The listeners consisted of 40 young adults with normal hearing. At the beginning of the study, directional detection thresholds (DDTs) were established for all listeners in each target-noise condition (5 NDN conditions and 35 DN conditions). We calculated the appropriate SLs needed for the localization task from the DDTs of individual listeners. All listeners demonstrated decreases in localization error (°) and increases in localization precision (%) as SL increased. Changes in overall localization performance as a function of SL were similar in NDN and DN. When target-noise conditions were grouped according to the location of S, localization performance was (a) most accurate when S originated from 0° and +90° azimuth, (b) relatively accurate when S was positioned at +45° azimuth, and (c) poor when S originated from rear-horizontal plane positions (+135° and 180° azimuth). At lower SLs, localization performance was poorer than performance reported in other studies of localization in noise. This report covers localization biases, error types, and the relationship between target detection and localization. iii

show abstract

Free-field release from masking

Cited by 88 publications

References 44 publications

Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem

Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem

Directional Hearing Aids

Localization of a Speech Target in Nondirectional and Directional Noise as a Function of Sensation Level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About