The effects of reverberation on a listener's ability to recognize target sentences in the presence of up to three synchronized masking sentences

References

• Abouchacra K.S. 2000. Synchronized Sentence Set (S³) [Compact Disk #3]. MD: U.S. Army Res. Lab.
   Google Scholar
• Abouchacra K.S., Letowski T., Besing J., Koehnke J. 2009. Clinical application of the Synchronized Sentence Set (S3). Proc. 16^th Int Cong Sound Vib. Krakow (Poland): July 5–9. ICSV.
   Google Scholar
• Alain C., Arnott S.R. 2000. Selectively attending to auditory objects. Front Basic, 5, D202–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R., Kidd Jr. G. 2002. The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2086–2098.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assmann P.F., Summerfield Q. 1990. Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Vowels with different fundamental frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 680–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolia R., Nelson W., Ericson M., Simpson B. 2000. A speech corpus for multitasked communications research. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1065–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. 2006. Characteristics of listening environments: Benefits of binaural hearing and implications for bilateral management. Int J Audiol, 45(Suppl. 1), S12–S19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bregman A.S. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. 2000. The Cocktail Party Phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acoust Acta Acoust, 86, 117–128.
   Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1101–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S., Simpson B.D., Ericson M.A., Scott K.R. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 2527–2538.
   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. 2006. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1562–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke M., Shoshanna M., Shinn-Cunningham B. 2004. The effect of reverberation on speech: Speech Separation and Comprehension in Complex Acoustic Environments by Humans and Machines: A Workshop, Montreal, Québec, Canada, November 4–7, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Darwin C., Hukin R. 2000a. Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 970–977.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin C., Hukin R. 2000b. Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 335–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durlach N.I., Mason C.R., J. Kidd G., Arbogast T.L., Colburn H.S. . 2003. Note on informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2984–2987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebata M. 2003. Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem. Acoustic Sci Tech, 24, 208–219.
   Google Scholar
• Ericson M.A., Brungart D.S., Simpson B.D. 2004. Factors that influence intelligibility in multitasked speech displays. Int J Aviation Spy, 14, 313–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M., Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception SRT for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman R.L., Heifer K.S., McCall D.D., Clifton R.K. 1999. The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3578–3588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallon F.J., Mason C.R., Kidd Jr. G. 2007. Task-dependent costs in processing two simultaneous auditory stimuli. Percept Psychophysics, 69, 757–771.
   Google Scholar
• Ihlefeld A., Chu S., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. 2007. Attending to space or intensity modulates spatial release from informational masking. Proc. DAGA (German Acoustical Society), Stuttgart, Germany, 19–22 March 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd G. Jr., Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R., Gallun F.J. 2005a. The advantage of knowing where to listen. J Acoustic Soc Am, 118, 3804–3815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd G. Jr., Mason C.R., Burgher A., Hartmann W.A. 2005b. The role of reverberation in release from masking due to spatial separation of sources for speech identification. Acoust Acta Acoust, 91, 526–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd G. Jr., Mason C.R., Richards V.M., Gallun F.J., Durlach N.I. 2008. Informational masking. W.A. Yost, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay. Auditory Perception of Sound Sources. New York: Springer Science, 143–190.
   Google Scholar
• Lehiste I., Peterson G.E. 1959. Linguistic considerations in the study of speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 31, 280–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marrone N., Mason C.R., Kidd G. Jr. 2008. The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms, J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 2064–3075.
   Google Scholar
• Moore T. 1981. Voice communication jamming research. AGARD Conference Proceedings 331: Aural Communication in Aviation, 2, 1–2, 6.
   Google Scholar
• Nabelek A. 1988. Identification of vowels in quiet, noise, and reverberation: Relationships with age and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 476–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabelek A., Letowski T.R., Tucker F.M. 1989. Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. J Acoust Soc Am, 86, 1259–1265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neff D.L. 1995. Signal properties that reduce masking by simultaneous, random-frequency maskers. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 1909–1920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neff D.L., Green D.M. 1987. Masking produced by spectral uncertainty with multicomponent maskers. Percept Psychophys, 41, 409–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh E.L., Lutfi R.A. 1998. Nonmonotonicity of informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 3489–3499.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers C.L., Lister J.L., Febo D.M., Besing J.M., Abrams H.B. 2006. Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Appl Psycholinguist, 27, 465–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider B.A., Li L., Daneman M. 2007. How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 478–591.
   Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham B.G. 2005. Influences of spatial cues on grouping and understanding sound. Proc Forum Acusticum, 29 August– 2 September 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham B.G. 2008. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cog Sci, 12, 182–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham B., Best V. 2008. Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing. Trends Amp, 12, 283–299.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yost W.A. 1997. The cocktail party problem: Forty years later. R.H. Gilkey, T.R. Anderson Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments. New Jersey: Erlbaum, 329–347.
   Google Scholar
• Zurek P.M. 1993. Binaural advantages and directional effects in speech intelligibility. G.A. Studebaker, I. Hochberg Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, (2nd edition). Needham Heights, USA: Allyn & Bacon, 255–276.
   Google Scholar