Abstract
We rely critically on our ability to ‘hear out’ (segregate) individual sound sources in a mixture. Yet, despite its importance, little is known regarding this ability. Perturbation analysis is a psychophysical method that has been successfully applied to related problems in vision [Murray, R.F. 2011. J. of Vision 11, 1–25]. Here the approach is adapted to audition. The application proceeds in three stages: First, simple speech and environmental sounds are synthesized according to a generative model of the sound-producing source. Second, listener decision strategy in segregating target from non-target (noise) sources is determined from decision weights (regression coefficients) relating listener judgments regarding the target to lawful perturbations in acoustic parameters, as dictated by the generative model. Third, factors limiting segregation are identified by comparing the obtained weights and residuals to those of a maximum-likelihood (ML) observer that optimizes segregation based on the equations of motion of the generating source. Here, the approach is applied to test between the two major models of sound source segregation; target enhancement versus noise cancellation. The results indicate a tendency of noise segregation to preempt target enhancement when the noise source is unchanging. However, the results also show individual differences in segregation strategy that are not evident in the measures of performance accuracy alone.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ANSI (2004) ANSI S3.6-2004. Specification for audiometers. American National Standards Institute, New York
Berg BG (1989) Analysis of weights in multiple observation tasks. J Acoust Soc Am 86:1743–1746
Bregman AS (1990) Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. Bradford Books/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Carlyon RP, Moore BCJ (1986) Continuous versus gated pedestals and the severe departure from Weber’s law. J Acoust Soc Am 79:453–460
de Cheveigné A, McAdams S, Laroche J, Rosenberg M (1995) Identification of concurrent harmonic and inharmonic vowels: a test of the theory of harmonic cancellation and enhancement. J Acoust Soc Am 97:3736–3748
Durlach N (1963) Equalization and cancellation theory of binaural masking-level differences. J Acoust Soc Am 35:1206–1218
Klatt DH (1980) Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. J Acoust Soc Am 67:971–995
Lutfi RA (2001) Auditory detection of hollowness. J Acoust Soc Am 110:1010–1019
Lutfi RA, Liu CJ (2007) Individual differences in source identification from synthesized impact sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 122:1017–1028
Lutfi RA, Liu CJ (2011a) A method for evaluating the relation between sound source segregation and masking. J Acoust Soc Am 129:EL34–38
Lutfi RA, Liu CJ (2011b) Target enhancement and noise cancellation in the identification of a rudimentary sound source in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 129:EL52–56
Lutfi RA, Stoelinga CNJ (2010) Sensory constraints on the identification of the geometric and material properties of struck bars. J Acoust Soc Am 127:350–360
Lutfi RA, Liu CJ, Stoelinga CNJ (2008) Level dominance in sound source identification. J Acoust Soc Am 124:3784–3792
Lutfi RA, Wightman FL (1996) Guessing or confusion?: Analytic predictions for two models of target-distracter interference in children. Abstracts of the Assoc. for Research in Otolaryngology 19:142
Meddis R, Hewitt MJ (1992) Modeling the identification of concurrent vowels with different fundamental frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 91:233–245
Morse PM, Ingard KU (1968) Theoretical acoustics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 175–121
Patterson RD (1976) Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 59:640–654
Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith IN (1980) Off-frequency listening and auditory-filter asymmetry. J Acoust Soc Am 67:229–245
Patterson RD, Smith DRR, van Dinter R, Walters TC (2008) Size information in the production and perception of communication sounds. In: Yost WA, Popper AN (eds) Springer handbook of auditory research: auditory perception of sound sources. Springer, New York, pp 43–76
Piechowiak T, Ewert SD, Dau T (2007) Modeling comodulation masking release using an equalization-cancellation mechanism. J Acoust Soc Am 121:2111–2126
Werner LA, Bargones JY (1991) Sources of auditory masking in infants: distraction effects. Percept Psychophys 50:405–412
Wier CC, Jesteadt W, Green DM (1977) Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. J Acoust Soc Am 61:178–184
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lutfi, R.A., Liu, CJ., Stoelinga, C.N.J. (2013). A New Approach to Sound Source Segregation. In: Moore, B., Patterson, R., Winter, I., Carlyon, R., Gockel, H. (eds) Basic Aspects of Hearing. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 787. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1590-9_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1590-9_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1589-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1590-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)