Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition

Richard L. Freyman, Uma Balakrishnan, Karen S. Helfer

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2001 · 357 citations · 36 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The precedence effect causes the interference to be perceived to the right, separating it from the front‑located target. The study aimed to assess how perceived spatial separation of speech and interference affects free‑field speech recognition. The authors presented 320 nonmeaningful sentences from a front loudspeaker while varying interference from one or two talkers either front‑only or front plus a right loudspeaker with a 4‑ms lead. Speech recognition improved when interference was spatially separated (F‑RF) versus front‑only, but this advantage disappeared with envelope‑modulated noise and persisted even when the interfering speech was unintelligible.

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted to determine the extent to which perceived separation of speech and interference improves speech recognition in the free field. Target speech stimuli were 320 grammatically correct but nonmeaningful sentences spoken by a female talker. In the first experiment the interference was a recording of either one or two female talkers reciting a continuous stream of similar nonmeaningful sentences. The target talker was always presented from a loudspeaker directly in front (0 degrees). The interference was either presented from the front loudspeaker (the F-F condition) or from both a right loudspeaker (60 degrees) and the front loudspeaker, with the right leading the front by 4 ms (the F-RF condition). Due to the precedence effect, the interference in the F-RF condition was perceived to be well to the right, while the target talker was heard from the front. For both the single-talker and two-talker interference, there was a sizable improvement in speech recognition in the F-RF condition compared with the F-F condition. However, a second experiment showed that there was no F-RF advantage when the interference was noise modulated by the single- or multi-channel envelope of the two-talker masker. Results of the third experiment indicated that the advantage of perceived separation is not limited to conditions where the interfering speech is understandable.

References

36