[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: spatial separation and ASA

> In other words,
> in cases where two signals were partially segregated by factor X,
> adding a difference in location would strengthen the segregation.

By separating spatially, you'll get a change in signal to noise ratio at
the two ears that will inevitably help. I think the work of Plomp (1976,
Acustica 34, 200-211) on speech intelligibility sheds some light on
this. In an anechoic environoment, spatial separation of two speech
sources gives a 5 dB advantage for speech intelligibility. If the
environment gets very echoic though, the advantage drops to 1 to 2 dB.
Note that head shadow plays a big role here. If you were to low-pass
filter the speech (limiting mostly to interaural timing cues), I bet the
advantage would drop to 2 or 3 dB in the anechoic and be non-existant in

Perhaps there are some more studies showing this? Speech has a number of
segregating cues, but can anyone point to more constrained studies that
show this, maybe with only one factor X?

>We know that spatial
> differences do play an important role in SEQUENTIAL grouping.).

Perhaps because of the integration of consitstant interaural cues over
time yeilding a clearer 'picture' of the scene?

> My point about spatial information was not that it was very weak
> but that it was only one of a number of cues for sound
> separation.  To this should be added the idea that it may need
> those other cues in order to be effective itself.
Yes, perhaps the human is better at Auditory SA than the machine,
because people are especially good at integrating all the information.

Best Regards,
Ward Drennan