Korean Journal of Audiology (대한청각학회지)

The Korean Audiology Society (대한청각학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Towards Size of Scene in Auditory Scene Analysis: A Systematic Review

  • Kwak, Chanbeom (Laboratory of Hearing and Technology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University) ;
  • Han, Woojae (Laboratory of Hearing and Technology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University)
  • Received : 2019.06.24
  • Accepted : 2019.09.05
  • Published : 2020.01.20
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Auditory scene analysis is defined as a listener's ability to segregate a meaningful message from meaningless background noise in a listening environment. To gain better understanding of auditory perception in terms of message integration and segregation ability among concurrent signals, we aimed to systematically review the size of auditory scenes among individuals. A total of seven electronic databases were searched from 2000 to the present with related key terms. Using our inclusion criteria, 4,507 articles were classified according to four sequential steps-identification, screening, eligibility, included. Following study selection, the quality of four included articles was evaluated using the CAMARADES checklist. In general, studies concluded that the size of auditory scene increased as the number of sound sources increased; however, when the number of sources was five or higher, the listener's auditory scene analysis reached its maximum capability. Unfortunately, the score of study quality was not determined to be very high, and the number of articles used to calculate mean effect size and statistical significance was insufficient to draw significant conclusions. We suggest that study design and materials that consider realistic listening environments should be used in further studies to deep understand the nature of auditory scene analysis within various groups.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (2019R1F1A1053060).

References

  1. Cherry EC. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am 1953;25:975-9. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907229
  2. Bregman AS. Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sounds. 1st ed. Cambridge, USA: The MIT Press;1990. p.1-792.
  3. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H. Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Study Behav 2005;35:151-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(05)35004-2
  4. Repp BH. Integration and segregation in speech perception. Lang Speech 1988;31(Pt 3):239-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098803100302
  5. Dobreva MS, O'Neill WE, Paige GD. Influence of aging on human sound localization. J Neurophysiol 2011;105:2471-86. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00951.2010
  6. Nager W, Kohlmetz C, Joppich G, Mobes J, Munte TF. Tracking of multiple sound sources defined by interaural time differences: brain potential evidence in humans. Neurosci Lett 2003;344:181-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00439-7
  7. Grossberg S, Govindarajan KK, Wyse LL, Cohen MA. ARTSTREAM: a neural network model of auditory scene analysis and source segregation. Neural Netw 2004;17;511-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2003.10.002
  8. Cooke MP, Brown GJ. Computational auditory scene analysis: exploiting principles of perceived continuity. Speech Commun 1993;13:391-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(93)90037-L
  9. Roch MA, Hurtig, RR, Huang T, Liu J, Arteaga SM. Foreground auditory scene analysis for hearing aids. Pattern Recognit Lett 2007;28:1351-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2007.03.002
  10. Wang D, Brown GJ. Computational auditory scene analysis: principles, algorithms, and applications. 1st ed. New Jersey, USA: Wiley-IEEE Press;2006. p.1-381.
  11. Zhong X, Yost WA. How many images are in an auditory scene? J Acoust Soc Am 2017;141:2882. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4981118
  12. Kawashima T, Sato T. Perceptual limits in a simulated "Cocktail party". Atten Percept Psychophys 2015;77:2108-20. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0910-9
  13. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
  14. Amitay S, Halliday L, Taylor J, Sohoglu E, Moore DR. Motivation and intelligence drive auditory perceptual learning. PloS One 2010;5:e9816. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009816
  15. Macleod MR, O'Collins T, Horky LL, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Systematic review and metaanalysis of the efficacy of FK506 in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2005;25:713-21. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600064
  16. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
  17. The R Foundation. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. The R Foundation; 2018 [cited 2019 May 20]. Available from: URL: https://www.R-project.org/.
  18. Eramudugolla R, Irvine DR, McAnally KI, Martin RL, Mattingley JB. Directed attention eliminates 'change deafness' in complex auditory scenes. Curr Biol 2005;15:1108-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.051
  19. Roberts KL, Doherty NJ, Maylor EA, Watson DG. Can auditory objects be subitized? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2019;45:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000578
  20. Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. PloS One 2013;8:e62836. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062836
  21. Yost WA, Dye RH Jr, Sheft S. A simulated "cocktail party" with up to three sound sources. Percept Psychophys 1996;58:1026-36. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206830
  22. Kahneman D. Attention and effort. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, USA: Prentice-Hall;1973. p.1-242.
  23. Bronkhoust AW. The cocktail-party problem revisited: early processing and selection of multi-talker speech. Atten Percept Psychophys 2015;77:1465-87. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0882-9
  24. Pollack I. Auditory informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am 1975;57(Suppl 1):S5. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1995329
  25. Watson CS, Kelly WJ, Wroton HW. Factors in the discrimination of tonal patterns. II. Selective attention and learning under various levels of stimulus uncertainty. J Acoust Soc Am 1976;60:1176-86. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381220
  26. Gosselin PA, Gagne JP. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011;54:944-58. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0069)
  27. Snyder JS, Alain C. Sequential auditory scene analysis is preserved in normal aging adults. Cereb Cortex 2007;17:501-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhj175
  28. Ben-David BM, Tse VY, Schneider BA. Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker? Hear Res 2012;290:55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2012.04.022
  29. Lopez-Poveda EA. Development of fundamental aspects of human auditory perception. In: Development of auditory and vestibular systems (eds. Romand R, Varela-Nieto I). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press;2014. p.287-314.
  30. Gordon-Salant S, Frisina RD, Popper AN, Fay RR. The aging auditory system. 1st ed. New York, USA: Springer;2010. p.1-293.