Informational masking by everyday sounds.
Informational masking by everyday sounds.
复制标题
日常声音掩盖信息。
DOI：
10.1121/1.428205
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Lutfi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Oh;R. Lutfi
当在每次试验中仅随机呈现噪声的几个频谱分量时，噪声中的音调检测严重退化[Neff和绿色，Percept.心理学。41，409-415（1987）]。阈值的升高归因于噪声分量的稀疏采样所引起的噪声的不确定性-信息掩蔽是用于描述结果的术语。本实验的目的是确定稀疏采样是从一组常见的日常声音，而不是噪音时，如何影响信息掩蔽。在每次演示中，从固定数量m个频谱分量的幅度和相位合成恒定总功率的不同掩蔽波形（在试验块中m = 2-921）。这些成分是从50种常见环境声音中随机选择的（例如，婴儿哭声、关门声、电话铃声），或者50个高斯噪声样本中的1个。掩蔽阈值为1.0 kHz的信号中存在的两种类型的掩蔽使用自适应，两个间隔，强制选择程序。结果与噪声复制较早，结果显示最大的海拔阈值为10-20采样组件。日常声音的结果显示出类似的模式，在较大的m值下，阈值比噪声阈值高出10 dB。掩蔽阈值的差异系统地与掩蔽光谱的总体方差的差异相关，如先前应用于噪声的模型所预测的[Lutfi，J. Acoust.美国社会94，748-758（1993）]。没有预测的结果是随后的试验分析，其中9-11分贝的掩蔽观察样本从日常的声音被评为容易识别的听众。结果表明，听众未能利用日常声音的频谱成分之间的合法依赖关系，以帮助检测，除非有足够的信息是很容易识别的声音。
Tone-in-noise detection is severely degraded when only a few spectral components of the noise are presented at random on each trial [Neff and Green, Percept. Psychophys. 41, 409-415 (1987)]. The elevations in threshold are attributed to uncertainty regarding the noise caused by sparse sampling of noise components-informational masking is the term used to describe the result. The present experiment was undertaken to determine how informational masking is affected when sparse sampling is from a set of common everyday sounds instead of noise. On each presentation a different masker waveform of constant total power was synthesized from the magnitude and phase of a fixed number, m, of spectral components (m = 2-921 across blocks of trials). The components were selected at random from 1 of 50 common environmental sounds (e.g., baby crying, door slamming, phone ringing), or 1 of 50 samples of Gaussian noise. Masked thresholds for a 1.0-kHz signal in the presence of both types of maskers were obtained using an adaptive, two-interval, forced-choice procedure. Results with noise replicated earlier, results showing largest elevations in threshold for 10-20 sampled components. Results with everyday sounds showed a similar pattern with thresholds elevated above those for noise by as much as 10 dB at the larger values of m. The differences in masked thresholds were systematically related to differences in the ensemble variance of masker spectra, as predicted by a model previously applied to noise [Lutfi, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94, 748-758 (1993)]. Not predicted was the result of a subsequent trial-by-trial analysis in which 9-11 dB less masking was observed for samples from everyday sounds rated as easily recognized by listeners. The results suggest that listeners fail to exploit lawful dependencies among spectral components of everyday sounds to aid detection, unless enough information is available for the sound to be easily recognized.