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
Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: Effect of masker type
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/asa/journal/jasa/134/5/10.1121/1.4826152
1.
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. 263269.
2.
2. Brokx, J. , and Nooteboom, S. (1982). “Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices,” J. Phonetics 10, 2336.
3.
3. Brungart, D. (2001). “Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 11011109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1345696
4.
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, 25272538.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1408946
5.
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, 36363647.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.418324
6.
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, 34543467.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.405675
7.
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. 307313.
8.
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, 29132922.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1616924
9.
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, 970977.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.428278
10.
10. de Cheveigné, A. (1999). “Waveform interactions and the segregation of concurrent vowels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 29592972.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.428115
11.
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, 28392847.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.418517
12.
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, 37363748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.412389
13.
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, 28482856.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.419476
14.
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, 28552865.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3643812
15.
15. Deroche, M. L. D. , and Culling, J. F. (2011b). “Narrow noise band detection in a complex masker. Masking level difference due to harmonicity,” Hear. Res. 282, 225235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2011.07.005
16.
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, 30903098.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1802535
17.
17. Freyman, R. , Balakrishnan, U. , and Helfer, K. (2001). “Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 21122122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1354984
18.
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, 22462256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1689343
19.
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, 833843.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1639908
20.
20. IEEE (1969). “IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements,” IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17, 227246.
21.
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, 526535.
22.
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, 18171829.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.413097
23.
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, 150160.
24.
24. Scheffers, M. T. M. (1983). “Sifting vowels: Auditory pitch analysis and sound segregation,” Ph.D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/134/5/10.1121/1.4826152
Loading
/content/asa/journal/jasa/134/5/10.1121/1.4826152
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/134/5/10.1121/1.4826152
2013-10-21
2014-09-18

Abstract

Speech reception thresholds were measured for a voice against two different maskers: Either two concurrent voices with the same fundamental frequency (0) 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 0s. A difference in 0 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 Δ0s or gradually toward larger Δ0s seems to depend on the nature of the masker.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/134/5/1.4826152.html;jsessionid=7agd1mchc88rp.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/134/5/10.1121/1.4826152&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: Effect of masker type
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/134/5/10.1121/1.4826152
10.1121/1.4826152
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM