1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Masker location uncertainty reveals evidence for suppression of maskers in two-talker contexts
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.3631666
/content/asa/journal/jasa/130/4/10.1121/1.3631666
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/130/4/10.1121/1.3631666
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Loudspeaker layout for experiment 1. Subject faces and attends to the central speaker directly ahead at all times. (a)–(c) co-located condition showing expected and unexpected configurations. (d) Separated condition with the masker expected on the left. (e) Separated condition, unexpected configuration with the masker expected on the left.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(a) Initial stop consonant identification thresholds (ISCITs) for Experiment calculated from the 67% intelligibility level of a target and single masker co-located or with the masker separated by 20° from the target. In the separated conditions, the masker was played either on the expected side (80% of trials) or at the symmetrically opposite, unexpected location (20% trials; see Fig. 1). Target ISCITs were lower (performance better) when the masker was at the expected location than when the masker was at the unexpected location. Error bars for individual data are standard deviations calculated from 1 000 repetitions of a bootstrap technique. Error bars for mean data are standard errors. (b) Spatial release from masking for experiment 1 across subjects from the 67% intelligibility level of a target and single masker separated by 20° as compared to a co-located target and masker at the expected location. Conditions as described in Fig. 1. Error bars are standard errors. Unmasking was significantly higher with the expected masker as opposed to the unexpected masker location (paired t-test, α < 0.05). Significant masking is marked with an asterisk. Error bars are standard errors.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Loudspeaker layout for experiment 2. Subject faces and attends to the central speaker directly ahead at all times. (a)–(c) Co-located condition showing expected and unexpected configurations. (d) Separated condition, expected configuration with the masker expected on the left. (e) Separated condition, unexpected configuration, non-masker side with the masker expected on the left. (f) Separated condition, unexpected configuration, masker side with the masker expected on the left.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(a) ISCITs for experiment 2 for trials where the target and single masker were co-located and when the masker was offset 20° to one side (separated). For separated conditions, trials were grouped by when the target was at the central, expected location (80% of trials), when the target was played from a distance of 40° from the expected location on the side with no masker (non-masker-side, 10% of trials) and when the target was played from a distance of 40° from the expected location on the side with a masker expected at 20° (masker-side, 10% of trials; see Fig. 3). Error bars as described in Fig. 2. There were significant differences between conditions with ISCTs on the non-masker side lower (performance better) than on the masker side location (Friedman’s test with post hoc t-tests with Bonferroni corrections). (b) Mean spatial release from masking calculated by comparing ISCITs in separated conditions (single masker 20° from the target) described in Fig. 2, to the ISCIT where the masker was co-located with the target. Significant masking is marked with an asterisk. Unmasking was not significantly different between conditions (paired t-test). Error bars are standard errors.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Loudspeaker layout for experiment 3. Subject faces and attends to the central speaker directly ahead at all times. (a)–(c) Co-located condition showing expected and unexpected configurations. (d) Separated condition, expected configuration with the masker expected on the left. (e) Separated condition, unexpected configuration, non-masker side with the masker expected on the left. (f) Separated condition, unexpected configuration, masker location with the masker expected on the left.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(a) ISCITs by subject in experiment 3 calculated from the 67% intelligibility level of a target and single masker co-located or with the masker 20° to one side. For separated conditions, trials were grouped by when the target was at the central, expected location (80% of trials), when the target was played from a angle of 20° from the expected location on the side with no masker (non-masker side, 10% of trials) and when the target was played from the expected target location (masker location, 10% of trials; see Fig. 5). Results were collected from both the right and left side and were pooled between hemispheres. Error bars as described in Fig. 2. There were significant differences between the conditions with ISCITs lower (performance better) at the non-masker side than at the masker location (Friedman’s test with post hoc t-tests with Bonferroni corrections). (b) Mean spatial release from masking in experiment 2 across subjects from the 67% intelligibility level of a target and single masker separated by 20° as compared to a co-located target and masker at the expected location. Conditions as described in Fig. 5. Error bars are standard errors. Significant unmasking is marked with an asterisk (z-test, α = 0.05).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/130/4/10.1121/1.3631666
2011-10-03
2014-04-17
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Masker location uncertainty reveals evidence for suppression of maskers in two-talker contexts
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/130/4/10.1121/1.3631666
10.1121/1.3631666
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM