Contributions of binaural information to the separation of different sound sources

References

• Ainsworth W.A., Miller J.B. The effect of relative formant amplitude on the identity of synthetic vowels. Lang. Speech 1972; 15: 328–341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assmann P.F., Summerfield Q. The perception of speech under adverse conditions. Speech Processing in the Auditory System, S. Greenberg, W.A. Ainsworth, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay. New York, Springer-Verlag, Inc. 2004
   Google Scholar
• Beerends J.G., Houtsma A.J.M. Pitch identification of simultaneous dichotic two-tone complexes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1986; 80: 1048–1055
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bregman A.S., Ahad P.A. Compact Disc: Demonstrations of auditory scene analysis. Department of PsychologyMcGill University, Montreal 1995
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acustica 2000; 86: 117–128
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W., Plomp R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1988; 83: 1508–1516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001; 109: 1101–1109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S. A binary masking technique for isolating energetic masking in speech perception. J Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005; 117: 2484
   Google Scholar
• Cooke M. Glimpsing speech. J. Phon. 2003; 31: 579–584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke M. Making sense of everyday speech: a glimpsing account. Speech Separation by Humans and Machines, P.L. Divenyi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York 2005
   Google Scholar
• Cooke M.P., Green P.D., Josifovski L., Vizinho A. Robust automatic speech recognition with missing and unreliable acoustic data. Speech Comm. 2001; 34: 267–285
   Google Scholar
• Culling J.F., Summerfield A.Q., Marshall D.H. Effects of simulated reverberation on the use of binaural cues and fundamental-frequency differences for separating concurrent vowels. Speech Comm. 1994; 14: 71–95
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culling J.F., Summerfield Q. Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995; 98: 785–797
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutting J.E. Auditory and linguistic processes in speech perception: inferences from six fusions in dichotic listening. Psych. Rev. 1976; 83: 114–140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J. Listening to two things at once. The auditory processing of speech: from sounds to words, M.E.H. Schouten. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin 1992
   Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J. Auditory streaming in language processing. Genetics and the Function of the Auditory System: 19th Danavox Symposium, L. Tranebjaerg, T. Andersen, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T. Poulsen. Holmens Trykkeri, Denmark 2002
   Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J. Pitch and auditory grouping. Pitch: Neural Coding and Perception, C.J. Plack, A.J. Oxenham, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper. Springer Verlag. 2005
   Google Scholar
• 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. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003; 114: 2913–2922
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J., Ciocca V. Grouping in pitch perception: Effects of onset asynchrony and ear of presentation of a mistuned component. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992; 91: 3381–3390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J., Gardner R.B. Mistuning a harmonic of a vowel: grouping and phase effects on vowel quality. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1986; 79: 838–845
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J., Hukin R.W. Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody and talker characteristics in selective attention. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000a; 107: 970–977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J., Hukin R.W. Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000b; 108: 335–342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drennan W.R., Gatehouse S., Lever C. Perceptual segregation of competing speech sounds: the role of spatial location. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003; 114: 2178–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan J.P., Carterette E.C., Thwing E.J. Some factors affecting multi-channel listening. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1954; 26: 774–782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman R.L., Helfer K.S., McCall D.D., Clifton R.K. The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999; 106: 3578–3588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill N.I., Darwin C.J. Lateralisation of a perturbed harmonic: effects of onset asynchrony and mistuning. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996; 100: 2352–2364
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hukin R.W., Darwin C.J. Comparison of the effect of onset asynchrony on auditory grouping in pitch matching and vowel identification. Percept. Psychophys. 1995; 57: 191–196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hukin R.W., Darwin C.J. Spatial cues to grouping in the Wessel illusion. Brit. J. Audiol. 2000; 34: 109
   Google Scholar
• Huron D. Tone and voice: A derivation of the rules of voice-leading from perceptual principles. Music Percepn 2001; 19: 1–64
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klatt D.H. A shift in formant frequencies is not the same as a shift in the center of gravity of a multi-formant energy concentration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1985; 77: S7
   Google Scholar
• Miller G.A. The masking of speech. Psychol. Bull. 1947; 44: 105–129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G.A., Licklider J.C.R. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1950; 22: 167–173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Peters R.W. Relative dominance of individual partials in determining the pitch of complex tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1985; 77: 1853–1860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Peters R.W. Thresholds for hearing mistuned partials as separate tones in harmonic complexes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1986; 80: 479–483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. Pitch of complex tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1967; 41: 1526–1533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remez R.E., Rubin P.E., Pisoni D.B., Carrell T.D. Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science 1981; 212: 947–950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J. A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005; 117: 2181–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risset J.-C., Wessel D.L. Exploration of timbre by analysis and synthesis. The Psychology of Music, D. Deutsch. Academic, New York 1982
   Google Scholar
• Roweis S. Automatic speech processing by inference in generative models. Speech Separation by Humans and Machines, P.L. Divenyi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York 2004
   Google Scholar
• Sach A.J., Bailey P.J. Some characteristics of auditory spatial attention revealed using rhythmic masking release. Percept Psychophys 2004; 66: 1379–87
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shackleton T.M., Meddis R. The role of interaural time difference and fundamental frequency difference in the identification of concurrent vowel pairs. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992; 91: 3579–3581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham B.G., Kopco N., Martin T.J. Localizing nearby sound sources in a classroom: binaural room impulse responses. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117: 3100–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turgeon M., Bregman A.S., Ahad P.A. Rhythmic masking release: contribution of cues for perceptual organization to the cross-spectral fusion of concurrent narrow-band noises. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 1819–31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Varga, A.P. & Moore, R.K. (1990) Hidden Markov Model decomposition of speech and noise. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. Albuquerque.
   Google Scholar
• Varga, A.P. & Moore, R.K. (1991) Simultaneous recognition of concurrent speech signals using hidden Markov model decomposition. Proc. ESCA EUROSPEECH conference. GenovaItaly, September.
   Google Scholar
• Wang D.L. An ideal binary mask as the computational goal of auditory scene analysis. Speech Separation by Humans and Machines, P.L. Divenyi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York 2004
   Google Scholar
• Wang D.L. An ideal binary mask as the computational goal of auditory scene analysis. Speech Separation by Humans and Machines, P.L. Divenyi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York 2005
   Google Scholar
• Wessel D.L. Timbre space as a musical control structure. Comp. Mus. J. 1979; 3: 45–52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wightman F.L., Kistler D.J. The dominant role of low-frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992; 91: 1648–1661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods W.A., Colburn S. Test of a model of auditory object formation using intensity and interaural time difference discriminations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992; 91: 2894–2902
   PubMedGoogle Scholar