J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(04): 271-276
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19018
Research Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Spatial Release from Masking Using Clinical Corpora: Sentence Recognition in a Colocated or Spatially Separated Speech Masker

Grant King
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC
Nicole E. Corbin
2   Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC
Lori J. Leibold
3   Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
Emily Buss
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC
› Author Affiliations
Funding This work was supported by the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD, R01 DC000397). [Figure 1] was based in part on a graphic developed by Kellie Halloran.
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 April 2020 (online)


Background Speech recognition in complex multisource environments is challenging, particularly for listeners with hearing loss. One source of difficulty is the reduced ability of listeners with hearing loss to benefit from spatial separation of the target and masker, an effect called spatial release from masking (SRM). Despite the prevalence of complex multisource environments in everyday life, SRM is not routinely evaluated in the audiology clinic.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of assessing SRM in adults using widely available tests of speech-in-speech recognition that can be conducted using standard clinical equipment.

Research Design Participants were 22 young adults with normal hearing. The task was masked sentence recognition, using each of five clinically available corpora with speech maskers. The target always sounded like it originated from directly in front of the listener, and the masker either sounded like it originated from the front (colocated with the target) or from the side (separated from the target). In the real spatial manipulation conditions, source location was manipulated by routing the target and masker to either a single speaker or to two speakers: one directly in front of the participant, and one mounted in an adjacent corner, 90° to the right. In the perceived spatial separation conditions, the target and masker were presented from both speakers with delays that made them sound as if they were either colocated or separated.

Results With real spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 7.1 to 11.4 dB, depending on the speech corpus. With perceived spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 1.8 to 3.1 dB. Whereas real separation improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the ear contralateral to the masker, SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions is based solely on interaural timing cues.

Conclusions The finding of robust SRM with widely available speech corpora supports the feasibility of measuring this important aspect of hearing in the audiology clinic. The finding of a small but significant SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions suggests that modified materials could be used to evaluate the use of interaural timing cues specifically.


Portions of this article were presented at the 44th Annual Scientific and Technology Meeting of the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, AZ, March 2–4, 2017.

  • References

  • 1 Agus TR, Akeroyd MA, Gatehouse S, Warden D. Informational masking in young and elderly listeners for speech masked by simultaneous speech and noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 126: 1926-1940
  • 2 ANSI. American National Standard, Specification for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6-2010. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute; 2010
  • 3 Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 1979; 13: 108-112
  • 4 Bregman AS. Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990
  • 5 Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 2527-2538
  • 6 Calandruccio L, Buss E, Bowdrie K. Effectiveness of two-talker maskers that differ in talker congruity and perceptual similarity to the target speech. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 1-14
  • 7 Cameron S, Dillon H. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S). Ear Hear 2007; 28: 196-211
  • 8 Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109: 2112-2122
  • 9 Gallun FJ, Diedesch AC, Kampel SD, Jakien KM. Independent impacts of age and hearing loss on spatial release in a complex auditory environment. Front Neurosci 2013; 7: 252
  • 10 Gallun FJ, Mason CR, Kidd Jr G. Binaural release from informational masking in a speech identification task. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118: 1614-1625
  • 11 Garofolo JS, Lamel LF, Fisher WM, Fiscus JG, Pallett DS, Dahlgren NL, Zue V. 1993. TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus. Philadelphia, PA: Lingusitic Data Consortium;
  • 12 Gilbert JL, Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Development, reliability, and validity of PRESTO: a new high-variability sentence recognition test. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24: 26-36
  • 13 Hillock-Dunn A, Taylor C, Buss E, Leibold LJ. Assessing speech perception in children with hearing loss: what conventional clinical tools may miss. Ear Hear 2015; (36) e57-e60
  • 14 Jakien KM, Kampel SD, Stansell MM, Gallun FJ. Validating a rapid, automated test of spatial release from masking. Am J Audiol 2017; 26: 507-518
  • 15 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 2395-2405
  • 16 Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB, Martin CS. Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. JAcoust SocAm 1989; 85: 365-378
  • 17 Phatak SA, Brungart DS, Zion DJ, Grant KW. Clinical assessment of functional hearing deficits: speech-in-noise performance. Ear Hear 2019; 40: 426-436
  • 18 Rosen S, Souza P, Ekelund C, Majeed AA. Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 133: 2431-2443
  • 19 Rothauser EH, Chapman WD, Guttman N, Norby KS, Silbiger HR, Urbanek GE, Weinstock M. I.E.E.E. recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Aud Electroacoust 1969; 17: 227-246
  • 20 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Cook SJ, Loiselle LM, DeJong MD, Hedley-Williams A, Sunderhaus LS, Hayes CA, Gifford RH. Development and validation of the pediatric AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2014; 35: 418-422
  • 21 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33: 112-117
  • 22 Takahashi G, Martinez CD, Beamer S, Bridges J, Noffsinger D, Sugiura K, Bratt GW, Williams DW. Subjective measures of hearing aid benefit and satisfaction in the NIDCD/VA follow-up study. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 323-349
  • 23 Vannson N, James C, Fraysse B, Strelnikov K, Barone P, Deguine O, Marx M. Quality of life and auditory performance in adults with asymmetric hearing loss. Audiol Neuro Otol 2015; 20 (1, suppl): 38-43