Predicting speech-in-speech recognition: Short-term audibility and spatial separation

  • Wasiuk P
  • Calandruccio L
  • Oleson J
  • et al.
7Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Quantifying the factors that predict variability in speech-in-speech recognition represents a fundamental challenge in auditory science. Stimulus factors associated with energetic and informational masking (IM) modulate variability in speech-in-speech recognition, but energetic effects can be difficult to estimate in spectro-temporally dynamic speech maskers. The current experiment characterized the effects of short-term audibility and differences in target and masker location (or perceived location) on the horizontal plane for sentence recognition in two-talker speech. Thirty young adults with normal hearing (NH) participated. Speech reception thresholds and keyword recognition at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were measured in each spatial condition. Short-term audibility for each keyword was quantified using a glimpsing model. Results revealed that speech-in-speech recognition depended on the proportion of audible glimpses available in the target + masker keyword stimulus in each spatial condition, even across stimuli presented at a fixed global SNR. Short-term audibility requirements were greater for colocated than spatially separated speech-in-speech recognition, and keyword recognition improved more rapidly as a function of increases in target audibility with spatial separation. Results indicate that spatial cues enhance glimpsing efficiency in competing speech for young adults with NH and provide a quantitative framework for estimating IM for speech-in-speech recognition in different spatial configurations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wasiuk, P. A., Calandruccio, L., Oleson, J. J., & Buss, E. (2023). Predicting speech-in-speech recognition: Short-term audibility and spatial separation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 154(3), 1827–1837. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0021069

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free