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.
oa
Phonemic restoration effect reversed in a reverberant room
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/1/10.1121/1.3665120
1.
1. Allen, J. B. , and Berkley, D. A. (1979). “Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 65(4), 943950.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.382599
2.
2. Bashford, J. A. , Jr., Riener, K. R. , and Warren, R. M. (1992). “Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations,” Percept. Psychophys. 51(3), 211217.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212247
3.
3. Baskent, D. (2010). “Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 128(4), 169174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3475794
4.
4. Baskent, D. , Eiler, C. L. , and Edwards, B. (2010). “Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss,” Hearing Res. 260(1–2), 5462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2009.11.007
5.
5. Cooke, M. (2006). “A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 119(3), 15621573.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2166600
6.
6. Institute of Electical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (1969). “IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements,” IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17, 225246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAU.1969.1162058
7.
7. Knudsen, V. O. (1929). “The hearing of speech in auditoriums,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 1, 5682.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1901470
8.
8. Li, N. , and Loizou, P. C. (2007). “Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 122(2), 11651172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2749454
9.
9. Lochner, J. , and Burger, J. (1964). “The influence of reflections in auditorium acoustics,” J. Sound Vibration. 1(4), 426454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-460X(64)90057-4
10.
10. Miller, G. A. , and Licklider, J. C. R. (1950). “The intelligibility of interrupted speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22(2), 167173.
11.
11. Nabelek, A. K. , and Robinette, L. (1978). “Influence of the precedence effect on word identification in normally hearing and hearing impaired subjects,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 63(1), 187194.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.381711
12.
12. Plomp, R. (1976). “Binaural and monaural speech intelligibility of connected discourse in reverberation as a function of azimuth of a single competing sound source (speech or noise),” Acustica. 34, 200211.
13.
13. Powers, G. L. , and Wilcox, J. C. (1977). “Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech with and without intervening noise,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 61(1), 195199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.381255
14.
14. Shahin, A. J. , and Miller, L. M. (2009). “Multisensory integration enhances phonemic restoration,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 125(3), 17441750.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3075576
15.
15. Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. , and Wang, D. (2007). “Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 123(1), 295301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2804701
16.
16. Warren, R. M. (1970). “Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds,” Science 167, 392393.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3917.392
17.
17. Zahorik, P. (2009). “Perceptually relevant parameters for virtual listening simulation of small room acoustics,” J. Acoust Soc. Am. 126(2), 776791.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3167842
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/1/10.1121/1.3665120
Loading

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.

Click to view

FIG. 1.

Spectrographic representation of a sample sentence (“The tube was blown and the tire flat and useless”) for 2 types of interrupting signals: (left) Silence and (right) Gaussian Noise; and 3 experimental listening conditions in separate rows: Anechoic Space (No Room), Source signals interrupted prior to room processing (Pre-Room), and at-the-ear signals interrupted following room processing (Post-Room). A 3 Hz interruption rate is shown.

Image of FIG. 2.

Click to view

FIG. 2.

Mean speech intelligibility across all listeners (n = 12) plotted as a function of interruption rate for both interruption types (Silence and Noise). Results from the (a) No Room, (b) Pre-Room, and (c) Post-Room listening conditions are shown in separate panels. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for each mean.

video/mp4,video/x-flv,video/flv,audio.mp3,audio.mpeg

Multimedia

The following multimedia file is available:

No Room with silent interruptions at 3 Hz interruption rate. This is a file of type .au (160 kB). [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3665120.1]

The following multimedia file is available:

No Room with noise interruptions at 3 Hz interruption rate. This is a file of type .au (160 kB). [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3665120.2]

The following multimedia file is available:

Pre-Room with silent interruptions at 3 Hz interruption rate. This is a file of type .au (268 kB). [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3665120.3]

The following multimedia file is available:

Pre-Room with noise interruptions at 3 Hz interruption rate. This is a file of type .au (268 kB). [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3665120.4]

The following multimedia file is available:

Post-Room with silent interruptions at 3 Hz interruption rate. This is a file of type .au (268 kB). [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3665120.5]

The following multimedia file is available:

Post-Room with noise interruptions at 3 Hz interruption rate. This is a file of type .au (268 kB). [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3665120.6]

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/1/10.1121/1.3665120
2011-12-13
2014-04-21

Abstract

Classic demonstrations of the phonemic restoration effect show increased intelligibility of interrupted speech when the interruptions are caused by a plausible masking sound rather than by silent periods. Previous studies of this effect have been conducted exclusively under anechoic or nearly anechoic listening conditions. This study demonstrates that the effect is reversed when sounds are presented in a realistically simulated reverberant room (broadband T 60 = 1.1 s): intelligibility is greater for silent interruptions than for interruptions by unmodulated noise. Additional results suggest that the reversal is primarily due to filling silent intervals with reverberant energy from the speech signal.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/131/1/1.3665120.html;jsessionid=s0qr480s7xga.x-aip-live-01?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/1/10.1121/1.3665120&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Phonemic restoration effect reversed in a reverberant room
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/1/10.1121/1.3665120
10.1121/1.3665120
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM