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.
Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: Effect of masker type
1. Bird, J. , and Darwin, C. J. (1998). “Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences,” in Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing, edited by A. R. Palmer, A. Rees, A. Q. Summerfield, and R. Meddis (Whurr, London), pp. 263–269.
2. Brokx, J. , and Nooteboom, S. (1982). “Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices,” J. Phonetics 10, 23–36.
3. Brungart, D. (2001). “Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 1101–1109.
4. Brungart, D. , Simpson, B. , Ericson, M. , and Scott, K. (2001). “Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 2527–2538.
5. Carlyon, R. P. , and Datta, A. J. (1997). “Excitation produced by Schroeder-phase complexes: Evidence for fast-acting compression in the auditory system,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 3636–3647.
6. Culling, J. F. , and Darwin, C. J. (1993). “Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: Within and across-formant grouping by f0,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 3454–3467.
7. Culling, J. F. , and Porter, J. S. (2004). “Effects of differences in the accent and gender of competing voices on speech segregation,” in Auditory Signal Processing: Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Models, edited by D. Pressnitzer, A. de Cheveigné, S. McAdams, and L. Collet (Springer Verlag, New York), pp. 307–313.
8. Darwin, C. J. , Brungart, D. S. , and Simpson, B. D. (2003). “Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 2913–2922.
9. Darwin, C. J. , and Hukin, R. W. (2000). “Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody and talker characteristics in selective attention,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 970–977.
11. de Cheveigné, A. , Kawahara, H. , Tsuzaki, M. , and Aikawa, K. (1997a). “Concurrent vowel segregation. I. Effects of relative amplitude and F0 difference,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 2839–2847.
12. de Cheveigné, A. , McAdams, S. , Laroche, J. , and Rosenberg, M. (1995). “Identification of concurrent harmonic and inharmonic vowels: A test of the theory of harmonic cancellation and enhancement,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 3736–3748.
13. de Cheveigné, A. , McAdams, S. , and Marin, C. (1997b). “Concurrent vowel segregation. II. Effects of phase, harmonicity and task,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 2848–2856.
14. Deroche, M. L. D. , and Culling, J. F. (2011a). “Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: Evidence for harmonic cancellation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 2855–2865.
16. Drullman, R. , and Bronkhorst, A. (2004). “Speech perception and talker segregation: Effects of level, pitch, and tactile support with multiple simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3090–3098.
17. Freyman, R. , Balakrishnan, U. , and Helfer, K. (2001). “Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 2112–2122.
18. Freyman, R. , Balakrishnan, U. , and Helfer, K. (2004). “Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 2246–2256.
19. Hawley, M. , Litovsky, R. , and Culling, J. (2004). “The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: Effect of location and type of masker,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 833–843.
20. IEEE (1969). “IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements,” IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17, 227–246.
21. Kidd, G. , Mason, C. , Brughera, A. , and Hartmann, W. M. (2005). “The role of reverberation in release from masking due to spatial separation of sources for speech identification,” Acta Acust. Acust. 91, 526–535.
22. Kohlrausch, A. , and Sander, A. (1995). “Phase effects in masking related to dispersion in the inner ear. II. Masking period patterns of short targets,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 1817–1829.
23. Lee, A. K. C. , and Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. (2008). “Effects of reverberant spatial cues on attention-dependent object formation,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 9, 150–160.
24. Scheffers, M. T. M. (1983). “Sifting vowels: Auditory pitch analysis and sound segregation,” Ph.D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.
Article metrics loading...
Speech reception thresholds were measured for a voice against two different maskers: Either two concurrent voices with the same fundamental frequency (F0) or a harmonic complex with the same long-term excitation pattern and broadband temporal envelope as the masking sentences (speech-modulated buzz). All sources had steady F0s. A difference in F0 of 2 or 8 semitones provided a 5-dB benefit for buzz maskers, whereas it provided a 3- and 8-dB benefit, respectively, for masking sentences. Whether intelligibility of a voice increases abruptly with small ΔF0s or gradually toward larger ΔF0s seems to depend on the nature of the masker.
Full text loading...
Most read this month