The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing
Abstract
Speech-reception thresholds (SRT) were measured for 17 normal-hearing and 17 hearing-impaired listeners in conditions simulating free-field situations with between one and six interfering talkers. The stimuli, speech and noise with identical long-term average spectra, were recorded with a KEMAR manikin in an anechoic room and presented to the subjects through headphones. The noise was modulated using the envelope fluctuations of the speech. Several conditions were simulated with the speaker always in front of the listener and the maskers either also in front, or positioned in a symmetrical or asymmetrical configuration around the listener. Results show that the hearing impaired have significantly poorer performance than the normal hearing in all conditions. The mean SRT differences between the groups range from 4.2–10 dB. It appears that the modulations in the masker act as an important cue for the normal-hearing listeners, who experience up to 5-dB release from masking, while being hardly beneficial for the hearing impaired listeners. The gain occurring when maskers are moved from the frontal position to positions around the listener varies from 1.5 to 8 dB for the normal hearing, and from 1 to 6.5 dB for the hearing impaired. It depends strongly on the number of maskers and their positions, but less on hearing impairment. The difference between the SRTs for binaural and best-ear listening (the ‘‘cocktail party effect’’) is approximately 3 dB in all conditions for both the normal-hearing and the hearing-impaired listeners.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
3-D sound for virtual reality and multimedia
Madole, D., & Begault, D. (1995) · Computer Music Journal · doi:10.2307/3680997 · Cited by 868
The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: Effect of location and type of interferer
Hawley, M. L., Litovsky, R. Y., & Culling, J. F. (2004) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1639908 · Cited by 538
Bee, M. A., & Micheyl, C. (2008) · Journal of Comparative Psychology · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.122.3.235 · Cited by 347
Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition
Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., & Helfer, K. S. (2001) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1354984 · Cited by 358
Gifford, R. H., Dorman, M. F., Skarzynski, H., Lorens, A., Polak, M., Driscoll, C. L. W., Roland, P., & Buchman, C. A. (2013) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31827e8163 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Bronkhorst, A. W., & Plomp, R.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1992-12-01
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3132-3139
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W1969105061
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.404209
- The paper
- Bronkhorst, A. W., & Plomp, R. (1992). Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.404209
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.