Predicting masking release of lateralized speech


  • Alexandre Chabot-Leclerc Hearing Systems Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Ewen N. MacDonald Hearing Systems Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Torsten Dau Hearing Systems Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark


Lőcsei et al. (2015) [Speech in Noise Workshop, Copenhagen, 46] measured speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in anechoic conditions where the target speech and the maskers were lateralized using interaural time delays. The maskers were speech-shaped noise (SSN) and reversed babble with 2, 4, or 8 talkers. For a given interferer type, the number of maskers presented on the target’s side was varied, such that none, some, or all maskers were presented on the same side as the target. In general, SRTs did not vary significantly when at least one masker was presented on the same side as the target. The largest masking release (MR) was observed when all maskers were on the opposite side of the target. The data in the conditions containing only energetic masking and modulation masking could be accounted for using a binaural extension of the speech-based envelope power spectrum model [sEPSM; Jørgensen et al., 2013, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130], which uses a short-term equalization-cancellation process to model binaural unmasking. In the conditions where informational masking (IM) was involved, the predicted SRTs were lower than the measured values because the model is blind to confusions experienced by the listeners. Additional simulations suggest that, in these conditions, it would be possible to estimate the confusions, and thus the amount of IM, based on the similarity of the target and masker representations in the envelope power domain.


ANSI (1997). American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S3.5, American National Standards Institute, New York.

Best, V., Thompson, E.R., Mason, C.R., and Kidd, G. (2013). “An energetic limit on spatial release from masking,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol., 14, 603-610.

Beutelmann, R., Brand, T., and Kollmeier, B. (2010). “Revision, extension, and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 127, 2479-2497.

Breebaart, J., van de Par, S., and Kohlrausch, A. (2001). “Binaural processing model based on contralateral inhibition. I. Model structure,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 110, 1074-1088.

Bronkhorst, A. (2000). “The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions,” Acta Acust. United Ac., 86, 117-128.

Chabot-Leclerc, A., MacDonald, E.N., and Dau, T. (2015). “Predicting binaural speech intelligibility using the signal-to-noise ratio in the envelope power domain,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., submitted.

Christiansen, S.K., Jepsen, M.L., and Dau, T. (2014). “Effects of tonotopicity, adaptation, modulation tuning, and temporal coherence in “primitive” auditory stream segregation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 135, 323-333.

Cooke, M., Barker, J., Cunningham, S., and Shao, X. (2006). “An audio-visual corpus for speech perception and automatic speech recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 120, 2421-2424.

Durlach, N. (1963). “Equalization and cancellation theory of binaural masking-level differences,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 35, 1206-1218.

Elhilali, M. and Shamma, S.A. (2008). “A cocktail party with a cortical twist: How cortical mechanisms contribute to sound segregation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 124, 3751-3771.

Jørgensen, S., Ewert, S.D., and Dau, T. (2013). “A multi-resolution envelope-power based model for speech intelligibility,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 134, 436-446.

Lavandier, M. and Culling, J.F. (2010). “Prediction of binaural speech intelligibility against noise in rooms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 127, 387-399.

Lőcsei, G., Hefting Pedersen, J., Laugesen, S., Santurette, S., Dau, T., and MacDonald, E.N. (2015). “Lateralized speech perception, temporal processing and cognitive function in NH and HI listeners,” Poster presented at Speech in Noise Workshop (Copenhagen, Denmark).

Nielsen, J.B., Dau, T., and Neher, T. (2014). “A danish open-set speech corpus for competing-speech studies,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 135, 407-420.

Rhebergen, K.S., Versfeld, N.J., and Dreschler, W.A. (2005). “Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 118, 1274-1277.

Stone, M.A., Füllgrabe, C., and Moore, B.C.J. (2012). “Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 132, 317-326.

Verhey, J.L., Dau, T., and Kollmeier, B. (1999). “Within-channel cues in comodulation masking release (CMR): Experiments and model predictions using a modulationfilterbank model‘,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 106, 2733-2745.

Wan, R., Durlach, N.I., and Colburn, H.S. (2014). “Application of a short-time version of the equalization-cancellation model to speech intelligibility experiments with speech maskers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 136, 768-776.

Watson, C.S. (2005). “Some comments on informational masking,” Acta Acust. United Ac., 91, 502-512.




How to Cite

Chabot-Leclerc, A., MacDonald, E. N., & Dau, T. (2015). Predicting masking release of lateralized speech. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 5, 397–404. Retrieved from



2015/6. Speech intelligibility in noise: Evaluation and modelling