Percepção da fala em presença de ruído competitivo: o efeito da taxa de modulação do ruído mascarante

Effect of modulation rate on masking release for speech

Resumos

OBJETIVO: Este estudo investigou o efeito das diferentes taxas de modulações do mascaramento na magnitude do masking release. MÉTODOS: Quinze indivíduos jovens, com audição normal, foram submetidos ao teste de reconhecimento de sentença na presença de ruído, utilizando as listas de sentenças do HINT-Brasil. Foram obtidos limiares de reconhecimento de fala em presença de ruído estável e ruído modulado, em diferentes taxas de modulação (4, 8, 16, 32 e 64 Hz). A magnitude do masking release foi obtida para cada modulação e foi realizada a análise comparativa dos resultados. RESULTADOS: Os achados demonstraram melhores limiares de reconhecimento de sentenças quando o ruído mascarante foi modulado em 4, 8, 16 e 32 Hz e piores limiares quando o ruído mascarante estava estável e em 64 Hz. No que diz respeito à análise da relação sinal/ruído, foram observados, no presente estudo, maiores valores para as tarefas que envolvem reconhecimento de sentenças com ruído estável, seguidos das tarefas que envolvem reconhecimento de sentenças com ruído modulado em 64 Hz, e menores valores para as tarefas que envolvem reconhecimento de sentenças com ruído modulado em 32, 16, 8 e 4 Hz, respectivamente. CONCLUSÃO: A magnitude do masking release para sentenças não se diferencia com taxas de modulação em amplitude entre 4 e 32 Hz. No entanto, quando a taxa de modulação é elevada a 64 Hz, a magnitude do masking release diminui.

Audição; Mascaramento perceptivo; Percepção da fala; Testes de discriminação da fala; Ruído

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of modulation rate on masking release for speech. METHODS:Fifteen normal hearing subjects participated in the study. They were tested on speech perception in noise using the sentences of the HINT-Brazil. Speech recognition thresholds were obtained in the presence of steady masking and amplitude modulated masking at rates of 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 Hz. The magnitude of masking release was obtained for each modulation rate, and results were compared. RESULTS:Data showed significantly lower speech thresholds when the masking noise was amplitude modulated at rates of 4, 8, 16 and 32 Hz, when compared to thresholds obtained in steady noise or noise modulated at 64 Hz. Speech-to-masker ratios (SMR) were higher in steady masking noise, followed by modulated noise at 64 Hz, and lower for modulated rates of 32, 16, 8 and 4 Hz, respectively. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of masking release for speech does not seem to differ significantly among modulation rates of 4 to 32 Hz. However, for a modulation rate of 64 Hz the magnitude of masking release is significantly reduced.

Hearing; Perceptual masking; Speech perception; Speech discrimination tests; Noise

• ¹
  Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;88(4):1725-36.
• ²
  Hall JW, Buss E, Grose JH, Roush PA. Effects of age and hearing impairment on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral modulation. Ear Hear. 2012;33(3):340-8.
• ³
  Brungart DS. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(3):1101-9.
• ⁴
  Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Scott KR, Ericson MA. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(5):2527-38.
• ⁵
  Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(5):2246-56.
• ⁶
  Jacob RTS, Monteiro NFG, Molina SV, Bevilacqua MC, Lauris JRP, Moret ALM. Percepção da fala em crianças em situação de ruído. Arq Int Otorrinolaringol. 2011;15(2):163-7.
• ⁷
  Bernstein JG, Grant KW. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125(5):3358-72.
• ⁸
  Buss E, Hall JW3rd, Grose JH. Spectral integration of synchronous and asynchronous cues to consoant indentification. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(5):2278-85.
• ⁹
  Gustafsson HA, Arlinger SD. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95(1):518-29.
• ¹⁰
  Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(2):961-8.
• ¹¹
  Anderson ES, Nelson DA, Kreft H, Nelson PB, Oxenham AJ. Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;130(1):364-75.
• ¹²
  Buss E, Whittle LN, Grose JH, Hall JW3rd. Masking release for words in amplitude-modulated noise as a function of modulation rate and task. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126(1):269-80.
• ¹³
  Buss E, He S, Grose JH, Hall JW3rd. The monoaural temporal window based on masking period pattern data in school-aged children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;133(3):1586-97.
• ¹⁴
  Füllgrabe C, Berthommier F, Lorenzi C. Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise. Hear Res. 2006;211(1-2):74-84.
• ¹⁵
  Stuart A, Phillips DP. Word recognition in continuous and interrupted broadband noise by young normal-hearing, older normal-hearing, and presbyacusic listeners. Ear Hear. 1996;17(6):478-89.
• ¹⁶
  Summers V, Molis MR. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(2):245-56.
• ¹⁷
  Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;120(6):3988-97.
• ¹⁸
  George EL, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;120(4):2295-311.
• ¹⁹
  Desloge JG, Reed CM, Braida LD, Perez ZD, Delhorne LA. Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(1):342-59.
• ²⁰
  Lorenzi C, Husson M, Ardoint M, Debruille X. Speech masking release in listeners with flat hearing loss: effects of masker fluctuation rate on identification scores and phonetic feature reception. Int J Audiol. 2006;45(9):487-95.
• ²¹
  Shejf S, Yost WA. Discrimination of start phase with sinusoidal envelope modulation. J Acoustic Soc Am. 2007;121(2):84-9.
• ²²
  Kwon BJ, Perry TT, Wilhelm CL, Healy, EW. Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;131(4):3111-9.
• ²³
  Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan, JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95(2):1085-99.
• ²⁴
  Grose JH, Mamo SK, Hall JW3rd. Age effects in temporal envelope processing: speech unmasking and auditory steady state responses. Ear Hear. 2009;30(5):568-75.
• ²⁵
  Bevilacqua MC, Banhara MR, Da Costa EA, Vignoly AB, Alvarenga KF. The Brazilian Portuguese hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol. 2008;47(6):364-5.
• ²⁶
  American National Institute (ANSI). (2004). American National Standart Specification for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6-2004. New York: ANSI, 2004.
• ²⁷
  Wetherill GB, Levitt H. Sequential estimation of points a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1965;18:1-10.
• ²⁸
  Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971;49(2):467-77.
• ²⁹
  Bode DL, Carhart R. Measurements of articulation functions using adaptive test procedures. IEE Trans Audiol Electroacoustic. 1973;21:196-201.
• ³⁰
  Miller GA, Licklider JCR. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1950;22(2):167-73.

Datas de Publicação

• Publicação nesta coleção
  24 Jan 2014
• Data do Fascículo
  Dez 2013

Histórico

• Recebido
  03 Jan 2013
• Aceito
  26 Ago 2013