Combined manipulations of the perceived location and spatial extent of the speech-target image predominantly affect speech-on-speech masking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech maskers contain both informational-masking and energetic-masking components. To fully understand speech masking, it is critical to separate these two types of masking components. This study investigated the effect of the inter-target-source delay (ITSD) on intelligibility of speech when both the speech target and masker were presented by each of the two spatially separated loudspeakers (located at −45 and +45 degrees, respectively). The masker was either two-voice speech (different contents between the two loudspeakers) or steady-state speech-spectrum-noise (uncorrelated between the two loudspeakers). The results show that as the ITSD was decreased from 64 to 0 ms, the target image progressively became funneled into the region around the midline, and the intelligibility of the target was monotonically improved by over 40% when the masker was speech, but by only about 10% when the masker was noise. Under the quiet condition, however, the intelligibility was not affected by the change of ITSD. The results suggest that combined manipulations of perceived location and spatial extent of the speech-target image by changing the ITSD predominantly affect informational masking of speech. [Work supported by China NSF and Canadian IHR.]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".