Modulation masking release reduction as a function of time-compressed speech
Redução do benefício da modulação do mascaramento em função da compressão temporal da fala
Fernando Augusto Pacífico; Silvana Maria Sobral Griz; Denise Costa Menezes; Karina Paes Advincula; Ana Augusta de Andrade Cordeiro; Maria Lucia Gurgel da Costa
Abstract
Purpose: to investigate the magnitude of the modulation masking release in sentence recognition as a function of compression level and modulation rate.
Methods: sentences of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Hearing in Noise Test sentences were used as stimulus. The sentence recognition thresholds were established as a function of speech compression level (0%, 33%, and 50%) in steady and modulated noise at different modulation rates (4, 10, 32 Hz). The analysis of variance was performed for repeated measures, using the 5% significance level.
Results: sentence recognition thresholds were higher for higher compression levels in the different types of noise. However, thresholds were smaller for modulated noises. Also, the magnitude of modulation masking release decreased as speech compression level increased. Nevertheless, no difference was observed in compressed speech between different noise modulation rates, in relation to the speech compression level.
Conclusion: the magnitude of the modulation masking release decreased as the speech time-compression increased. Also, the reductions in modulation masking release, in relation to the speech time-compression level, did not differ between the masking-noise modulation rates (4, 10, and 32 Hz).
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: investigar a magnitude do benefício da modulação do mascaramento no reconhecimento de sentenças, em função do nível de compressão temporal da fala e da taxa de modulação do ruído.
Métodos: foram utilizadas sentenças do Hearing in Noise Test versão Português do Brasil. Foram determinados os limiares de reconhecimento das sentenças em função do nível de compressão temporal da fala (0%, 33% e 50%) em presença de ruído estável e modulado, em diferentes taxas de modulação (4, 10, 32 Hz). Foi realizada uma análise de variância para medidas repetidas, adotando nível de significância de 5%.
Resultados: os limiares de reconhecimento de sentenças foram mais elevados com o aumento do nível de compressão temporal nos diferentes tipos de ruídos, no entanto, foram menores em presença dos ruídos modulados. Além disso, a magnitude do benefício da modulação do mascaramento diminuiu com o aumento do nível de compressão temporal da fala. Contudo, não foi observada diferença na fala comprimida entre as diferentes taxas de modulação do ruído, em função do nível de compressão temporal da fala.
Conclusão: a magnitude do benefício do mascaramento modulado diminuiu com o aumento da compressão temporal da fala e as reduções no benefício do mascaramento modulado em função do nível de compressão temporal da fala não diferiram entre as taxas de modulações do ruído mascarante (4 Hz, 10 Hz e 32 Hz).
Palavras-chave
Referências
1. Grose JH, Mamo SK, Hall JW. Age effects in temporal envelope processing: Speech Unmasking and Auditory Steady State Responses. Ear and Hearing [Internet]. 2009 Oct [cited 2020 Feb 3]; 30(5):568-75. Available from: https://insights.ovid.com/article/00003446-200910000-00009
2. Advincula KP, Menezes DC, Pacifico FA, Griz SMS. Effect of modulation rate on masking release for speech. Audiol. Commun. Res. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2020 May 21]; 18(4):238-44. Available from: https://www.scielo.br/pdf/acr/v18n4/en_03.pdf
3. Grose JH, Griz S, Pacifico FA, Advincula KP, Menezes DC. Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression. Int J Audiol [Internet]. 2015 Apr 3 [cited 2020 Jun 1];54(4):274-81. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25630394
4. Billings CJ, Penman TM, McMillian GP, Ellis E. Electrophysiology and perception of speech in noise in older listeners: effects of hearing impairment & age. Ear Hear. 2015;36(6):710-22. DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000191
5. Maamor N, Billings C. Cortical signal-in-noise coding varies by noise type, signal-to-noise ratio, age, and hearing status. Neurosci Lett. 2017;636:258-64. DOI:10.1016/j.neulet.2016.11.020
6. Advincula KP, Menezes DC, Pacifico FA, Costa MLG, Griz SMS. Age effects in temporal auditory processing: modulation masking release and forward masking effect. Audiol. Commun. Res. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 May 21]; 23:e1861. Available from: https://www.scielo.br/pdf/acr/v23/2317-6431-acr-23-e1861.pdf
7. Tanner MA, Spitzer ER, Hyzy JP, Grose JH. Masking release for speech in modulated maskers: electrophysiological and behavioral measures. Ear Hear [Internet]. 2019 Jul/Aug. [cited 2020 May 21]; 40(4):1009-15. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30557224/
8. Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am [Internet]. 2003 Apr [cited 2020 May 29];113(4Pt1):2084-94. Available from: http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/113/4/10.1121/1.1555611
9. Grose JH, Menezes DC, Poter HL, Griz S. Masking period patterns & forward masking for speech-shaped noise: age-related effects. Ear Hear. 2016;37(1):48-54. DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000200
10. Dirks DD, Wilson RH, Bower DR. Effect of pulsed masking on selected speech materials. J Acoust Soc Am [Internet]. 1969 Oct [cited 2020 Apr 15]; 46(4B):898-906. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5824033
11. Yan Z, Dong X, Qunyan R, Shengming G, Fuyuan M. An effective speech compression based on syllable division. ASA. 2017;29:1-8. DOI: 10.1121/2.0000480
12. Carina P, Anastasios S, Mart VD, Deniz B. Effects of additional low-pass-filtered speech on listening effort for noise-band-vocoded speech in quiet and in noise. Ear Hear. 2018;40(1):3-17. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000587.
13. Sobon KA, Taleb NM, Buss E, Grose JH, Calandruccio L. Psychometric function slope for speech-in-noise and speech-in-speech: effects of development and aging. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;145(4): doi.org/10.1121/1.5097377.
14. Hall JW, Buss E, Grose JH. Factors affecting the development of speech recognition in steady and modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016;139(5): doi.org/10.1121/1.4950810.
Submetido em:
19/06/2020
Aceito em:
22/09/2020
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email