Subject: Re: AUDITORY Digest - 9 May 2004 to 10 May 2004 (#2004-112) From: "Watson, Charles S" <watson(at)INDIANA.EDU> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:34:31 -0500Regrading Patrick Wong's query about training people to hear speech in noise. Strange you should ask. Miller, J.D., Dalby, J. M, Watson, C. S. and Burleson, D. F. (2004) Training experienced hearing-aid users to identify syllable initial consonants in quiet and in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 115, Pt. 2, May 2004, p. 2387. This is the abstract of a poster/paper to be given at ASA. Basically it found that training with multiple talkers and multiple productions, for about 14 hours, did yield a modest improvement in the S/N at which they could achieve 80% correct on difficult phonemic discriminations. Noise was a multi-talker babble. A little more detail can be found in the abstract, or contact Jim Miller. csw -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA] On Behalf Of Automatic digest processor Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:00 PM To: Recipients of AUDITORY digests Subject: AUDITORY Digest - 9 May 2004 to 10 May 2004 (#2004-112) There are 11 messages totalling 376 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. A couple of questions on OAE measurements (2) 2. <No subject given> 3. will phase distortion affect hearing result? (2) 4. research on bad quality singing 5. pitch in speech 6. Statistical foundation of jnd and critical bandwidth (2) 7. speech in noise training 8. hearing integration time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:46:35 +0200 From: "Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda" <ealopezpoveda(at)USAL.ES> Subject: A couple of questions on OAE measurements Dear friends, I am trying to interpret the results produced by Interacoustics' OtoRead=20 apparatus for OAE screening. The printouts for the DPOAEs test specify the= =20 value for F2 only. The value of F1 seems to be a mistery. Does anyone know= =20 this value? Thank you in advance. -- Enrique Dr. Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda Instituto de Neurociencias de Castilla y Le=F3n Universidad de Salamanca, Avda. Alfonso X "El Sabio" s/n 37007 Salamanca, Spain. Tel. +34-923 294 500 ext. 1957 Fax. +34-923 294 730 E-mail: ealopezpoveda(at)usal.es http://web.usal.es/~ealopezpoveda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 12:20:33 +0000 From: yoav frankel <yoavfr(at)HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: <No subject given> Hello, I am doing some research on bad quality singing. I would like to know if someone is aware of any reference to an updated model of voice production from the cognitive aspect (or other). Thanks Yoav Frankel Research Assistant Musicology laboratory Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:38:39 +0100 From: "Jose I. Alcantara" <jia10(at)CUS.CAM.AC.UK> Subject: Re: A couple of questions on OAE measurements Hola Enrique, We usually use an f1/f2 frequency ratio of 1.2, if this is of any help? Cheers, Jose On Mon, 10 May 2004, Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda wrote: > Dear friends, >=20 > I am trying to interpret the results produced by Interacoustics' >OtoRead= =20 > apparatus for OAE screening. The printouts for the DPOAEs test > specify t= he=20 > value for F2 only. The value of F1 seems to be a mistery. Does anyone > kn= ow=20 > this value? >=20 > Thank you in advance. >=20 > -- Enrique >=20 > Dr. Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda > Instituto de Neurociencias de Castilla y Le=F3n Universidad de >Salamanca, Avda. Alfonso X "El Sabio" s/n > 37007 Salamanca, Spain. >=20 > Tel. +34-923 294 500 ext. 1957 > Fax. +34-923 294 730 > E-mail: ealopezpoveda(at)usal.es > http://web.usal.es/~ealopezpoveda >=20 ________________________________________________________________________ ___= ___ Jos=E9 Ignacio Alc=E1ntara Affiliated Lecturer=09=09Fellow of Fitzwilliam College and=09 The Psychological Laboratory=09Director of Studies in Natural Sciences (Bio= logical) University of Cambridge Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3EB Email: jia10(at)cus.cam.ac.uk Tel: (0)1223-333569/562 Fax: (0)1223-333564 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:18:17 +0800 From: xiao xianbo <xxb00(at)MAILS.TSINGHUA.EDU.CN> Subject: will phase distortion affect hearing result? Dear List, I am working on algorithms on digital hearing aid. As I know, auditory is sensitive to amplitude on every frequency. Then how about phase infomation? Will all the filters necessarily be linear phase in a multi-band hearing aid? Any discussion or paper recommendation will be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:11:52 -0400 From: Ramin Pichevar <Ramin.Pichevar(at)USHERBROOKE.CA> Subject: Re: will phase distortion affect hearing result? Xiao, As you already mentioned, audition is more sensitive to amplitude than = to phase. That is why, for example some performance criteria (i.e. the = Log Spectral distortion) used in speech coding are based on amplitude. = On the other hand, it seems that you sum up the outputs of filters in a = filterbank for your hearing algorithm. Note that a phase distortion in = each of the filters can cause an amplitude distortion in the output (you = are adding complex numbers: an amplitude and a phase for each filter). = Therefore a phase distortion may result in an amplitude distortion. Best regards, Ramin -----Message d'origine----- De : AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception = [mailto:AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA]De la part de xiao xianbo Envoy=C3=A9 : 10 mai 2004 10:18 =C3=80 : AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA Objet : will phase distortion affect hearing result? Dear List, I am working on algorithms on digital hearing aid. As I know, auditory is sensitive to amplitude on every frequency. Then how about = phase infomation? Will all the filters necessarily be linear phase in a = multi-band hearing aid? Any discussion or paper recommendation will be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:23:07 -0400 From: "Marvit, Peter" <PMarvit(at)SOM.UMARYLAND.EDU> Subject: Re: research on bad quality singing Perhaps a good resource would be http://www.williamhung.net/. [[ Sorry, I couldn't resist. ]] : Peter Marvit, PhD <pmarvit(at)som.umaryland.edu> : : Dept. Anatomy and Neurobiology University of Maryland Medical School: : 685 W. Baltimore Street, HSF 222 Baltimore, MD 21201 : : phone 410-706-1272 fax 410-706-2512 : ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:30:19 -0400 From: RRandhawa <rsran(at)SPRINTMAIL.COM> Subject: pitch in speech Dear List, I am studying the quasiperiodic nature of speech and am looking for some kind comments on whether anyone could shed some light as to the strange counter intutive results that were indicated. Basically, I am measuring the wavelength manually by visually identifying the periodicity of the waveform for some short words e.g. no, go, me etc, using to their horror, family members for the samples. The variations from the begining of the word to the end in the worst case was about 25hz based on the wavelength but was much smaller for words that ended in the vowel 'o', where I would have expected it to be much larger. To the extent that the variation was this small, tended to reinforce my belief that the length of the vocal tract does not change much and therefore it is the shape of the waveform that provides the preceived variation in pitch for spoken words. But this also led to a problem in that, the shape of the waveform varies widely between speakers, though the transition from consonant to vowel seems to be identifiable. Hence even if the modalities of vision and hearing are assumed to be the same, then I would have thought that the shape of the input waveforms should also be the same, unless one reason the shape changes could be due to the differing basic wavelengths between the speakers. I am using *.wav files with the inherent PCM coding and am wondering whether this could also contribute to the variation in the waveforms that I am seeing. Thanking everybody, Yours Truly Randy Randhawa ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:42:55 +0100 From: Andrew Milne <andymilne(at)DIAL.PIPEX.COM> Subject: Statistical foundation of jnd and critical bandwidth Dear List, When terms like critical bandwidth or just-noticeable-difference are used, what is their statistical foundation? For instance, if I say that the JND for pitch is 5 cents (at a given frequency, for a sample), for what percentage of responses would I expect would I expect to get a "yes the pitch has changed" answer? Andy Milne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:05:45 -0400 From: William Hartmann <hartmann(at)PA.MSU.EDU> Subject: Re: Statistical foundation of jnd and critical bandwidth AM, For a yes/no task such as you describe, you need to find the hit rate and the false alarm rate. Then the JND is normally defined for a d-prime of approximately 1.0. Best, Bill Andrew Milne wrote: > > Dear List, > > When terms like critical bandwidth or just-noticeable-difference are > used, what is their statistical foundation? > > For instance, if I say that the JND for pitch is 5 cents (at a given > frequency, for a sample), for what percentage of responses would I > expect would I expect to get a "yes the pitch has changed" answer? > > Andy Milne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:45:02 -0500 From: Patrick Wong <pwong(at)NORTHWESTERN.EDU> Subject: speech in noise training Hi all, I'm looking for research studies involving training people to listen to speech in noise. It can be something like you have the subjects identify phonemes and words and gradually increase the level of noise within a 2-week period, and when you test them after 2 weeks, they are better at speech ID even when the noise level is reasonably high. Thanks, Patrick --------------- Patrick Wong Assistant Professor Communication Sciences and Disorders Northwestern University (847) 491-2416 (phone) 2240 Campus Drive (847) 491-4975 (fax) Evanston, IL 60208 FSB 3-365 (office) Email: pwong(at)northwestern.edu Webpage: http://www.communication.northwestern.edu/csd/faculty/Patrick_C_Wong/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:51:06 +1000 From: David Gilfillan <davidgil(at)IHUG.COM.AU> Subject: hearing integration time Can anyone tell me where I can find out what the integration time of the hearing system is in each octave band? David Gilfillan ph 0414504513 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception >[mailto:AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA] On Behalf Of Ramin Pichevar > Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2004 1:12 AM > To: AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA > Subject: Re: will phase distortion affect hearing result? >=20 > Xiao, > As you already mentioned, audition is more sensitive to amplitude than to > phase. That is why, for example some performance criteria (i.e. the Log > Spectral distortion) used in speech coding are based on amplitude. On the > other hand, it seems that you sum up the outputs of filters in a > filterbank for your hearing algorithm. Note that a phase distortion in > each of the filters can cause an amplitude distortion in the output (you > are adding complex numbers: an amplitude and a phase for each filter). > Therefore a phase distortion may result in an amplitude distortion. > Best regards, > Ramin >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception >[mailto:AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA]De la part de xiao xianbo > Envoy=E9 : 10 mai 2004 10:18 > =C0 : AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA > Objet : will phase distortion affect hearing result? >=20 >=20 > Dear List, > I am working on algorithms on digital hearing aid. As I know, >auditory is sensitive to amplitude on every frequency. Then how about >phase infomation? Will all the filters necessarily be linear phase in >a multi- > band > hearing aid? > Any discussion or paper recommendation will be appreciated. ------------------------------ End of AUDITORY Digest - 9 May 2004 to 10 May 2004 (#2004-112) **************************************************************