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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Contextual variability during speech-in-speech recognition
2. Bamford, J. , and Wilson, I. (1979). “ Methodological considerations and practical aspects of the BKB sentence lists,” in Speech-hearing Tests and the Spoken Language of Hearing-impaired Children, edited by J. Bench and J. Bamford (Academic, London), pp. 148–187.
3. Barr, D. , Levy, R. , Scheepers, C. , and Tily, H. J. (2013). “ Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal,” J. Mem. Lang. 68(3), 255–278.
4. Brouwer, S. , Van Engen, K. J. , Calandruccio, L. , and Bradlow, A. R. (2012). “ Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: Language familiarity and semantic content,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(2), 1449–1464.
5. Brungart, D. S. , and Simpson, B. D. (2004). “ Within-ear ad across-ear interference in a dichotic cocktail party listening task: Effects of masker uncertainty,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(1), 301–310.
6. Calandruccio, L. , Brouwer, S. , Van Engen, K. J. , Bradlow, A. R. , and Dhar, S. (2013). “ Masking release due to linguistic and phonetic similarity between the target and masker speech,” Am. J. Audiol. 22(1), 157–164.
7. Freyman, R. L. , Helfer, K. S. , and Balakrishnan, U. (2007). “ Variability and uncertainty in masking by competing speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121(2), 1040–1046.
8. Garcia Lecumberri, M. L. , and Cooke, M. (2006). “ Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant recognition in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119(4), 2445–2454.
9. IEEE Subcommittee on Subjective Measurements. IEEE Recommended Practices for Speech Quality Measurements (1969). IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17, 227–246.
10. Jones, G. L. , and Litovsky, R. Y. (2008). “ Role of masker predictability in the cocktail party problem,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(6), 3818–3830.
11. Van Engen, K. J. , and Bradlow, A. R. (2007). “ Sentence recognition in native-and foreign-language multi-talker background noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121(1), 519–526.
Article metrics loading...
This study examined the influence of background language variation on speech recognition. English listeners performed an English sentence recognition task in either “pure” background conditions in which all trials had either English or Dutch background babble or in mixed background conditions in which the background language varied across trials (i.e., a mix of English and Dutch or one of these background languages mixed with quiet trials). This design allowed the authors to compare performance on identical trials across pure and mixed conditions. The data reveal that speech-in-speech recognition is sensitive to contextual variation in terms of the target-background language (mis)match depending on the relative ease/difficulty of the test trials in relation to the surrounding trials.
Full text loading...
Most read this month