ArticleEar and hearing
Effect of Masker Head Orientation, Listener Age, and Extended High-Frequency Sensitivity on Speech Recognition in Spatially Separated Speech.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Listener Position on Speech Recognition in a Simulated Multitalker Environment.Audiology research · 2026Article
- The role of talker sex and physical dimensions in horizontal speech directivity.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- An Anechoic, High-Fidelity, Multidirectional Speech Corpus.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Factors influencing the minimum audible change in talker head orientation cues using diotic stimuli.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Band importance for speech-in-speech recognition in the presence of extended high-frequency cues.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Differential benefits of unmasking extended high-frequency content of target or background speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Predicting Behavioral Threshold at 6 and 8 kHz for Children and Adults Based on the Auditory Brainstem Response.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- Extending the High-Frequency Bandwidth and Predicting Speech-in-Noise Recognition: Building on the Work of Pat Stelmachowicz.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- Auditory Brainstem Responses at 6 and 8 kHz in Infants With Normal Hearing.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Observational Study to Preliminarily Characterize the Audiological Profile of Children With Down Syndrome.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Observational
- On the use of the TIMIT, QuickSIN, NU-6, and other widely used bandlimited speech materials for speech perception experiments.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMasked speech recognition is typically assessed as though the target and background talkers are all directly facing the listener. However, background speech in natural environments is often produced by talkers facing other directions, and talker head orientation affects the spectral content of speech, particularly at the extended high frequencies (EHFs; >8 kHz). This study investigated the effect of masker head orientation and listeners' EHF sensitivity on speech-in-speech recognition and spatial release from masking in children and adults.
designParticipants were 5- to 7-year-olds (n = 15) and adults (n = 34), all with normal hearing up to 8 kHz and a range of EHF hearing thresholds. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for target sentences recorded from a microphone directly in front of the talker's mouth and presented from a loudspeaker directly in front of the listener, simulating a target directly in front of and facing the listener. The maskers were two streams of concatenated words recorded from a microphone located at either 0° or 60° azimuth, simulating masker talkers facing the listener or facing away from the listener, respectively. Maskers were presented in one of three spatial conditions: co-located with the target, symmetrically separated on either side of the target (+54° and -54° on the horizontal plane), or asymmetrically separated to the right of the target (both +54° on the horizontal plane).
resultsPerformance was poorer for the facing than for the nonfacing masker head orientation. This benefit of the nonfacing masker head orientation, or head orientation release from masking (HORM), was largest under the co-located condition, but it was also observed for the symmetric and asymmetric masker spatial separation conditions. SRTs were positively correlated with the mean 16-kHz threshold across ears in adults for the nonfacing conditions but not for the facing masker conditions. In adults with normal EHF thresholds, the HORM was comparable in magnitude to the benefit of a symmetric spatial separation of the target and maskers. Although children benefited from the nonfacing masker head orientation, their HORM was reduced compared to adults with normal EHF thresholds. Spatial release from masking was comparable across age groups for symmetric masker placement, but it was larger in adults than children for the asymmetric masker.
conclusionsMasker head orientation affects speech-in-speech recognition in children and adults, particularly those with normal EHF thresholds. This is important because masker talkers do not all face the listener under most natural listening conditions, and assuming a midline orientation would tend to overestimate the effect of spatial separation. The benefits associated with EHF audibility for speech-in-speech recognition may warrant clinical evaluation of thresholds above 8 kHz.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.