Relationship between speech recognition in noise and sparseness

References

• ANSI S3.5 (1969) Methods for the calculation of the articulation index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI S3.5 (1997) Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow H. 2001. Redundancy reduction revisited. Network, 12, 241–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell A.J. & Sejnowski T.J. 1997. The independent components of natural scenes are edge filters. Vision Res, 37, 3327–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bregman A.S. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. & Plomp R. 1992. Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 3132–3139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherry E.C. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 25, 975–979.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke M. 2003 Glimpsing speech. J Phon, 31, 579–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, M. 2006. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1562–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin C. 2008. Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philos Trans R SocLond BBiol Sci, 363, 1011–1021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Leon P.L. 2000. Short-time kurtosis of speech signals with application to co-channel speech separation. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2, 831–833.
   Google Scholar
• Dirks D.D. & Bower D. 1970. Effect of forward and backward masking on speech Intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 47, 1003–1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. 1993. Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. J Acoust Soc Am, 94, 1295–1300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field D.J. 1994. What is the goal of sensory coding? Neural Computation, 6, 559–601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner B. & Martin K. 1994. HRTF measurements of a KEMAR dummy-head microphone. MIT Media Lab Perceptual Computing Technical Report. Cambridge, MIT Media Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Garofolo J.S., Lamel L.F., Fisher W.M., Fiscus J.G., Pallett D.S. . 1993. DARPA TIMIT Acoustic Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus CD-ROM. Gaithersburg, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert J.R., Moler C. & Schreiber R. 1992. Sparse matrices in Matlab: Design and implementation. Siam J Matrix Anal A, 13, 333–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gazor S. & Zhang W. 2003. Speech probability distribution. IEEE Sig Proc Letters, 10, 204–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnansia D., Jourdes V. & Lorenzi C. 2008. Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release. Hearing Res, 239, 60–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hygge S., Ronnberg J., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 1992. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res, 35, 208–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hyvarinen A. & Oja E. 2000. Independent component analysis: Algorithms and applications. Neural Netw, 13, 411–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James W.K., Robert H.G., Scott K.I. & Brian D.S. 1999. The cocktail party effect with conversational speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 1025.
   Google Scholar
• Leblanc J. P. & De Leon P.L. 1998. Speech separation by kurtosis maximization. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2, 1029–1032.
   Google Scholar
• Lewicki M.S. 2002. Efficient coding of natural sounds. Nature Neurosci, 5, 356–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li N. & Loizou P.C. 2007. Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1165–1172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G.A. & Licklider J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemer E., Goubran R. & Mahmoud S. 1999. SNR estimation of speech signals using subbands and fourth-order statistics. IEEE Signal Process Lett, 6, 171–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olshausen B.A. & Field D.J. 2004. Sparse coding of sensory inputs. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 14, 481–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olshausen B.A. & O'Connor K.N. 2002. A new window on sound. Nat Neurosci, 5, 292–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul B. & David W. 2009. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 5.1.05). Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.praat.org/
   Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C.V. 1987. Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech-intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 413–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters R.W., Moore B.C.J. & Baer T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally-hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise-level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S. & Versfeld N.J. 2005. 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, 117, 2181–2192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J., de Laat J.A.P.M. & Dreschler W.A. 2010. Modelling the speech reception threshold in non-stationary noise in hearing-impaired listeners as a function of level. Int J Audiol, 49, 856–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice J.A. 1995. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Second edition. Belmont: Duxbury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V., Jensvold A., Padilla M., Robert M.E. & Wang X.S. 1999 Consonant recordings for speech testing. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, L71–L74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson S.A. & Cooke M. 2005. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 2775–2778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephen R. & Richard E. 2001. Independent Component Analysis: Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stilp C.E. & Kluender K.R. 2010. Cochlea-scaled entropy, not consonants, vowels, or time, best predicts speech intelligibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107, 12387–12392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone J.V. 1993. Independent Component Analysis: A Tutorial Introduction, London: Bradford Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner K.C. & Brand T. 2005 Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144–156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang D.L., Kjems U., Pedersen M.S., Boldt J.B. & Lunner T. 2009. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 2336–2347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar