A computational model for assessment of speech intelligibility in informational masking

Abstract

The existing auditory computational models for evaluating speech intelligibility can only account for energetic masking, and the effect of informational masking is rarely described in these models. This study was aimed to make a computational model considering the mechanism of informational masking. Several psychoacoustic experiments were conducted to test the effect of informational masking on speech intelligibility by manipulating the number of masking talker, speech rate, and the similarity of F0 contour between target and masker. The results showed that the speech reception threshold for the target increased as the F0 contours of the masker became more similar to that of the target, suggesting that the difficulty in segregating the target harmonics from the masker harmonics may underlie the informational masking effect. Based on these studies, a new auditory computational model was made by inducing the auditory function of harmonic extraction to the traditional model of speech intelligibility index (SII), named as harmonic extraction (HF) model. The predictions of the HF model are highly consistent with the experimental results.

Keywords

auditory computational model / speech intelligibility / informational masking / F0 contour / harmonic extraction

References

[1] Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9921, Ergonomics — Assessment of speech communication. 2003

[2] Watson C S. Uncertainty, informational masking, and the capacity of immediate auditory memory. In: Yost W A, Watson C S, Eds. Auditory Processing of Complex Sounds. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987, 267-277

[3] Freyman R L, Balakrishnan U, Helfer K S. Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2001, 109(5): 2112-2122

[4] Brungart D S, Simpson B D, Ericson M A, Scott K R. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2001, 110(5): 2527-2538

[5] Durlach N I, Mason C R, Kidd G Jr, Arbogast T L, Colburn H S, Shinn-Cunningham B G. Note on informational masking. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2003, 113(6): 2984-2987

[6] Wu X H, Wang C, Chen J, Qu H W, Li W R, Wu Y H, Schneider B A, Li L. The effect of perceived spatial separation on informational masking of Chinese speech. Hearing Research, 2005, 199(1-2): 1-10

[7] Mattys S L, Brooks J, Cooke M. Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology, 2009, 59(3): 203-243

[8] Freyman R L, Balakrishnan U, Helfer K S. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004, 115(5): 2246-2256

[9] Simpson S A, Cooke M. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2005, 118(5): 2775-2778

[10] Rhebergen K S, Versfeld N J, Dreschler W A. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and nonnative interfering speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2005, 118(3): 1274-1277

[11] French N R, Steinberg J C. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1947, 19(1): 90-119

[12] Fletcher H, Galt R H. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1950, 22(2): 89-151

[13] ANSI. ANSI S3.5, Methods for the calculation of the articulation index. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1969

[14] ANSI. ANSI S3.5-1997, Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1997

[15] Zhang J L. Statistic relations on articulation index across different speech test materials. Acoustics, 1964, 1: 90-94 (in Chinese)

[16] Zhang J L, Ma D Y. A new method for calculating articulation index. Acoustics, 1965, 2: 80-84 (in Chinese)

[17] Zhang J L. The statistic relation on articulation index between syllable and phoneme. Physics, 1974, 23: 315-320 (in Chinese)

[18] Houtgast T, Steeneken H J. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1985, 77(3): 1069-1077

[19] Chi T, Gao Y, Guyton M C, Ru P, Shamma S. Spectrotemporal modulation transfer functions and speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1999, 106(5): 2719-2732

[20] Elhilali M, Chi T, Shamma S A. A spectro-temporal modulation index (STMI) for assessment of speech intelligibility. Speech Communication, 2003, 41(2-3): 331-348

[21] Chen J. Mechanism of informational masking and computational model for evaluating speech intelligibility. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Beijing: Peking University, 2009 (in Chinese)

[22] Li L, Daneman M, Qi J G, Schneider B A. Does the information content of an irrelevant source differentially affect spoken word recognition in younger and older adults? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2004, 30(6): 1077-1091

[23] Huang Y, Huang Q, Chen X, Qu T S, Wu X H, Li L. Perceptual integration between target speech and target-speech reflection reduces masking for target-speech recognition in younger adults and older adults. Hearing Research, 2008, 244(1-2): 51-65

[24] Litovsky R Y, Colburn H S, Yost W A, Guzman S J. The precedence effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1999, 106(4): 1633-1654

[25] Wu X H, Chen J, Yang Z G, Huang Q, Wang M Y, Li L. Effect of number of masking talkers on speech-on-speech masking in Chinese. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech2007). 2007, 390-393

[26] Henja D, Musicus B. The solafs time-scale modification algorithm. Technical report. Bolt Beranek & Newman, 1991

[27] Binns C, Culling J F. The role of fundamental frequency contours in the perception of speech against interfering speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2007, 122(3): 1765-1776

[28] Chen J, Li H H, Li L, Moore C J B, Wu X H. Informational masking of speech produced by speech-like sounds without linguistic content. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 2011 (conditionally accepted)

[29] Scheffers M T M. Sifting vowels: Auditory pitch analysis and sound segregation. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen, 1983

[30] Licklider J C R. A duplex theory of pitch perception. Experientia, 1951, 7(4): 128-134

[31] Assmann P F, Summerfield Q. Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Vowels with the same fundamental frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1989, 85(1): 327-338

[32] Meddis R, Hewitt M J. Modeling the identification of concurrent vowels with different fundamental frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1992, 91(1): 233-245

[33] de Cheveigné A. Concurrent vowel identification. III: A neural model of harmonic interference cancellation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1997, 101(5): 2857-2865

[34] Cooke M, Ellis D P W. The auditory organization of speech and other sources in listeners and computational models. Speech Communication, 2001, 35(3-4): 141-177

[35] Greenberg S, Ainsworth W. Speech processing in the auditory system: An overview. In: Greenberg S et al., Eds. Speech Processing in the Auditory System. Springer: Berlin, 2004, 20-22

[36] Patterson R D, Allerhand M H, Gigu`ere C. Time-domain modeling of peripheral auditory processing: A modular architecture and a software platform. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1995, 98(4): 1890-1894

[37] Glasberg B R, Moore B C J. A model of loudness applicable to time-varying sounds. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 2002, 50(5): 331-342

[38] Glasberg B R, Moore B C J. Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hearing Research, 1990, 47(1-2): 103-138

[39] Wu M, Wang D, Brown G J. A multipitch tracking algorithm for noisy speech. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 2003, 11(3): 229-241

[40] Studebaker G A, Sherbecoe R L, Gilmore C. Frequencyimportance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 word test. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1993, 36(4): 799-807

[41] Rhebergen K S, Versfeld N J, Dreschler W A. Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2006, 120(6): 3988-3997

[42] Huang Q. Frequency importance function of Mandarin Chinese speech and models for speech intelligibility evaluation. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Beijing: Peking University, 2007 (in Chinese)

[43] Brokx J P L, Nooteboom S G. Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. Journal of Phonetics, 1982, 10(1): 23-36

[44] Darwin C J, Brungart D S, Simpson B D. Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2003, 114(5): 2913-2922

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg