Back

Hearing in categories aids speech streaming at the "cocktail party"

Bidelman, G.; Bernard, F.; Skubic, K.

2024-04-05 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.04.03.587795 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Our perceptual system bins elements of the speech signal into categories to make speech perception manageable. Here, we aimed to test whether hearing speech in categories (as opposed to a continuous/gradient fashion) affords yet another benefit to speech recognition: parsing noisy speech at the "cocktail party." We measured speech recognition in a simulated 3D cocktail party environment. We manipulated task difficulty by varying the number of additional maskers presented at other spatial locations in the horizontal soundfield (1-4 talkers) and via forward vs. time-reversed maskers, promoting more and less informational masking (IM), respectively. In separate tasks, we measured isolated phoneme categorization using two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) and visual analog scaling (VAS) tasks designed to promote more/less categorical hearing and thus test putative links between categorization and real-world speech-in-noise skills. We first show that listeners can only monitor up to [~]3 talkers despite up to 5 in the soundscape and streaming is not related to extended high-frequency hearing thresholds (though QuickSIN scores are). We then confirm speech streaming accuracy and speed decline with additional competing talkers and amidst forward compared to reverse maskers with added IM. Dividing listeners into "discrete" vs. "continuous" categorizers based on their VAS labeling (i.e., whether responses were binary or continuous judgments), we then show the degree of IM experienced at the cocktail party is predicted by their degree of categoricity in phoneme labeling; more discrete listeners are less susceptible to IM than their gradient responding peers. Our results establish a link between speech categorization skills and cocktail party processing, with a categorical (rather than gradient) listening strategy benefiting degraded speech perception. These findings imply figure-ground deficits common in many disorders might arise through a surprisingly simple mechanism: a failure to properly bin sounds into categories.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
Trends in Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
3
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.7%
4
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
5
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.0%
7
Hearing Research
54 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
8
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
9
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
10
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.8%
11
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.4%
12
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.5%
15
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
16
Brain and Language
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
17
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
18
Developmental Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
19
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
21
Ear & Hearing
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
22
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
23
Neurobiology of Language
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
24
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
25
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 45%
0.6%
26
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
27
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
28
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%