The Effects of Speech Masking on Neural Tracking of Acoustic and Semantic Features of Natural Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Listening environments contain background sounds that mask speech and lead to communication challenges. Sensitivity to slow acoustic fluctuations in speech can help segregate speech from background noise. Semantic context can also facilitate speech perception in noise, for example, by enabling prediction of upcoming words. However, not much is known about how different degrees of background masking affect the neural processing of acoustic and semantic features during naturalistic speech listening. In the current electroencephalography (EEG) study, participants listened to engaging, spoken stories masked at different levels of multi-talker babble to investigate how neural activity in response to acoustic and semantic features changes with acoustic challenges, and how such effects relate to speech intelligibility. The pattern of neural response amplitudes associated with both acoustic and semantic speech features across masking levels was U-shaped, such that amplitudes were largest for moderate masking levels. This U-shape may be due to increased attentional focus when speech comprehension is challenging, but manageable. The latency of the neural responses increased linearly with increasing background masking, and neural latency change associated with acoustic processing most closely mirrored the changes in speech intelligibility. Finally, tracking responses related to semantic dissimilarity remained robust until severe speech masking (−3 dB SNR). The current study reveals that neural responses to acoustic features are highly sensitive to background masking and decreasing speech intelligibility, whereas neural responses to semantic features are relatively robust, suggesting that individuals track the meaning of the story well even in moderate background sound.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".