The effect of spatial separation of sources on the masking of a speech signal was investigated for three types of maskers, ranging from energetic to informational. Normal-hearing listeners performed a closed-set speech identification task in the presence of a masker at various signal-to-noise ratios. Stimuli were presented in a quiet sound field. The signal was played from 0° azimuth and a masker was played either from the same location or from 90° to the right. Signals and maskers were derived from sentences that were preprocessed by a modified cochlear-implant simulation program that filtered each sentence into 15 frequency bands, extracted the envelopes from each band, and used these envelopes to modulate pure tones at the center frequencies of the bands. In each trial, the signal was generated by summing together eight randomly selected frequency bands from the preprocessed signal sentence. Three maskers were derived from the preprocessed masker sentences: (1) different-band sentence, which was generated by summing together six randomly selected frequency bands out of the seven bands not present in the signal (resulting in primarily informational masking); (2) different-band noise, which was generated by convolving the different-band sentence with Gaussian noise; and (3) same-band noise, which was generated by summing the same eight bands from the preprocessed masker sentence that were used in the signal sentence and convolving the result with Gaussian noise (resulting in primarily energetic masking). Results revealed that in the different-band sentence masker, the effect of spatial separation averaged 18 dB (at 51% correct), while in the different-band and same-band noise maskers the effect was less than 10 dB. These results suggest that, in these conditions, the advantage due to spatial separation of sources is greater for informational masking than for energetic masking.

1.
Allen
,
P.
, and
Wightman
,
F.
(
1994
). “
Psychometric functions for children’s detection of tones in noise
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
37
,
205
215
.
2.
Bolia
,
R. S.
,
Ericson
,
M. A.
,
Nelson
,
W. T.
,
McKinley
,
R. L.
, and
Simpson
,
B. D.
(
1999
). “
A cocktail party effect in the median plane?
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
105
,
1390
1391
.
3.
Bolia
,
R. S.
,
Nelson
,
W. T.
,
Ericson
,
M. A.
, and
Simpson
,
B. D.
(
2000
). “
A speech corpus for multitalker communications research
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
107
,
1065
1066
.
4.
Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA).
5.
Bronkhorst
,
A. W.
, and
Plomp
,
R.
(
1990
). “
A clinical test for the assessment of binaural speech perception in noise
,”
Audiology
29
,
275
285
.
6.
Bronkhorst
,
A. W.
, and
Plomp
,
R.
(
1992
). “
Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
92
,
3132
3139
.
7.
Brungart
,
D. S.
(
2001a
). “
Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
,
1101
1109
.
8.
Brungart
,
D. S.
(
2001b
). “
Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
,
2276
2279
.
9.
Brungart
,
D. S.
, and
Simpson
,
B. D.
(
2001
). “
Contralateral masking effects in dichotic listening with two competing talkers in the target ear
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
,
2486
.
10.
Brungart
,
D. S.
,
Simpson
,
B. D.
,
Ericson
,
M. A.
, and
Scott
,
K. R.
(
2001
). “
Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
110
,
2527
2538
.
11.
Cherry
,
E. C.
(
1953
). “
Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and two ears
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
25
,
975
979
.
12.
Dirks
,
D. D.
, and
Bower
,
D. R.
(
1969
). “
Masking effects of speech competing messages
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
12
,
229
245
.
13.
Dolan
,
T. R.
(
1968
). “
Effect of masker spectrum level on masking-level differences at low signal frequencies
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
44
,
1507
1512
.
14.
Dolan
,
T. R.
, and
Robinson
,
D. E.
(
1967
). “
An explanation of masking level differences that result from interaural intensive disparities of noise
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
42
,
977
981
.
15.
Dorman
,
M. F.
,
Loizou
,
P. C.
, and
Rainey
,
D.
(
1997
). “
Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
102
,
2403
2411
.
16.
Duquesnoy
,
A. J.
(
1983
). “
Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
74
,
739
743
.
17.
Egan
,
J. P.
,
Carterette
,
E. C.
, and
Thwing
,
E. J.
(
1954
). “
Some factors affecting multi-channel listening
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
26
,
774
782
.
18.
Ericson, M. A., and McKinley, R. L. (1997). “The intelligibility of multiple talkers separated spatially in noise,” in Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, edited by R. H. Gilkey and T. R. Anderson (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 701–724.
19.
Festen
,
J. M.
, and
Plomp
,
R.
(
1990
). “
Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
88
,
1725
1736
.
20.
Freyman
,
R. L.
,
Helfer
,
K. S.
,
McCall
,
D. D.
, and
Clifton
,
R. K.
(
1999
). “
The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
106
,
3578
3588
.
21.
Freyman
,
R. L.
,
Balakrishnan
,
U.
, and
Helfer
,
K. S.
(
2001
). “
Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
,
2112
2122
.
22.
Gelfand
,
S. A.
,
Ross
,
L.
, and
Miller
,
S.
(
1988
). “
Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: Effects of aging and hearing loss
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
83
,
248
256
.
23.
Hawley, M. L. (2000). “Speech intelligibility, localization and binaural hearing in listeners with normal and impaired hearing,” Ph.D. dissertation, Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA.
24.
Hirsh
,
I. J.
(
1948
). “
The influence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
20
,
536
544
.
25.
Kidd
,
G.
, Jr.
,
Mason
,
C. R.
, and
Arbogast
,
T. L.
(
2002
). “
Similarity, uncertainty and masking in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
111
,
1367
1376
.
26.
Kidd
,
G.
, Jr.
,
Mason
,
C. R.
, and
Rohtla
,
T. L.
(
1995
). “
Binaural advantage for sound pattern identification
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
98
,
1977
1986
.
27.
Kidd
,
G.
, Jr.
,
Mason
,
C. R.
,
Rohtla
,
T. L.
, and
Deliwala
,
P. S.
(
1998
). “
Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
104
,
422
431
.
28.
Leek
,
M. R.
,
Brown
,
M. E.
, and
Dorman
,
M. F.
(
1991
). “
Informational masking and auditory attention
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
50
,
205
214
.
29.
Levitt
,
H.
(
1971
). “
Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
49
,
467
477
.
30.
Lutfi
,
R. A.
(
1989
). “
Informational processing of complex sound. I. Intensity discrimination
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
86
,
934
944
.
31.
McFadden
,
D.
(
1968
). “
Masking-level differences determined with and without interaural disparities in masker intensity
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
44
,
212
223
.
32.
Neff
,
D. L.
(
1995
). “
Signal properties that reduce masking by simultaneous, random-frequency maskers
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
98
,
1909
1920
.
33.
Neff
,
D. L
., and
Green
,
D. M
. (
1987
). “
Masking produced by spectral uncertainty with multi-component maskers
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
41
,
409
415
.
34.
Nilsson
,
M.
,
Gelnett
,
D.
,
Sullivan
,
J.
,
Soli
,
S. D.
, and
Goldberg
,
R. L.
(
1992
). “
Norms for the hearing in noise test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
92
,
2385
.
35.
Peissig
,
J.
, and
Kollmeier
,
B.
(
1997
). “
Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
101
,
1660
1670
.
36.
Pollack
,
I.
(
1975
). “
Auditory informational masking
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1
57
,
S5
.
37.
Shannon
,
R. V.
,
Zeng
,
F. G.
,
Kamath
,
V.
,
Wygonski
,
J.
, and
Ekelid
,
M.
(
1995
). “
Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues
,”
Science
270
,
303
304
.
38.
Simpson
,
B. D.
,
Bolia
,
R. S.
,
Ericson
,
M. A.
, and
McKinley
,
R. L.
(
1999
). “
The effect of sentence onset asynchrony on call sign detection and message intelligibility in a simulated ‘cocktail party,’ 
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
105
,
1024
.
39.
Watson, C. S. (1987). “Uncertainty, informational masking and the capacity of immediate auditory memory,” in Auditory Processing of Complex Sounds, edited by W. A. Yost and C. S. Watson (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 267–277.
40.
Watson
,
C. S.
,
Kelly
,
W. J.
, and
Wroton
,
H. W.
(
1976
). “
Factors in the discrimination of tonal patterns: II. Selective attention and learning under various levels of stimulus uncertainty
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
60
,
1175
1181
.
41.
Wilson
,
R. H.
, and
Carter
,
A. S.
(
2001
). “
Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials
,”
J. Am. Acad. Audiol
12
,
7
14
.
42.
Wilson
,
R. H.
,
Zizz
,
C. A.
,
Shanks
,
J. E.
, and
Causey
,
G. D.
(
1990
). “
Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by a female speaker
,”
J. Speech Hear Disord.
55
,
771
778
.
43.
Yost, W. A. (1997). “The cocktail party problem: Forty years later,” in Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, edited by R. A. Gilkey and T. R. Anderson (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 329–348.
44.
Zurek, P. M. (1993). “Binaural advantages and directional effects in speech intelligibility,” in Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, edited by G. A. Studebaker and I. Hochberg (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA), pp. 255–276.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.