Re: spatial separation and ASA (Ward Drennan )

Subject: Re: spatial separation and ASA
From:    Ward Drennan  <ward(at)IHR.GLA.AC.UK>
Date:    Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:26:36 -0000

> 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 reverberation. 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

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University