arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2106.15659

Towards a generalized monaural and binaural auditory model for psychoacoustics and speech intelligibility

Thomas Biberger·Stephan D. Ewert
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Auditory perception involves cues in the monaural auditory pathways as well as binaural cues based on differences between the ears. So far auditory models have often focused on either monaural or binaural experiments in isolation. Although binaural models typically build upon stages of (existing) monaural models, only a few attempts have been made to extend a monaural model by a binaural stage using a unified decision stage for monaural and binaural cues. In such approaches, a typical prototype of binaural processing has been the classical equalization-cancelation mechanism, which either involves signal-adaptive delays and provides a single channel output or can be implemented with tapped delays providing a high-dimensional multichannel output. This contribution extends the (monaural) generalized envelope power spectrum model by a non-adaptive binaural stage with only a few, fixed output channels. The binaural stage resembles features of physiologically motivated hemispheric binaural processing, as simplified signal processing stages, yielding a 5-channel monaural and binaural matrix feature "decoder" (BMFD). The back end of the existing monaural model is applied to the 5-channel BMFD output and calculates short-time envelope power and power features. The model is evaluated and discussed for a baseline database of monaural and binaural psychoacoustic experiments from the literature.

Explore related subjects

eess.AScs.SD

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas Biberger, Stephan D. Ewert. 2021-06-29. Towards a generalized monaural and binaural auditory model for psychoacoustics and speech intelligibility. https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus%2F2022018

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

LLMs and Speech: Integration vs. Combination

In this work, we study different approaches to utilize large language models (LLMs) for automatic speech recognition (ASR). Specifically, we compare the tight integration of an acoustic model (AM) with the LLM ("speech LLM") to the traditional way of combining AM and LLM via shallow fusion and provide ablations on the effect of different label units and LLM sizes. For tight integration, we further examine the effect of attention interfaces, encoder downsampling, and length normalization. Furthermore, we investigate joint recognition with a CTC model to mitigate hallucinations of speech LLMs and present effective optimizations. We train and evaluate on LibriSpeech and Loquacious and additionally evaluate on the HuggingFace ASR leaderboard. Across model sizes, we find that shallow fusion consistently outperforms tight integration of AM and LLM on in-domain data, highlighting the importance of strong shallow-fusion baselines when evaluating speech LLMs for ASR. On the more heterogeneous HuggingFace ASR leaderboard, however, the integrated prefix LLM achieves lower average WER than shallow fusion, with gains concentrated on out-of-domain corpora.

eess.AS↗
arXiv2026

Vaani Benchmark V1.0: An Inclusive Multimodal Benchmark Dataset for Hindi

Benchmarking is critical for the systematic evaluation of machine learning systems. While several open-source datasets are available for Hindi, existing benchmarks remain limited in terms of modality, geographic diversity, demographic representation, and transcription robustness. We introduce an inclusive, multimodal Hindi benchmark dataset collected from 102 districts across India. The dataset consists of spontaneous speech elicited using image prompts and recorded under real-world acoustic conditions across diverse demographic groups. Each audio segment is associated with the image prompt that elicited it and is annotated with three independent transcriptions, enabling multi-reference evaluation that accounts for permissible orthographic and lexical variations. We show that single-reference evaluation overstates errors, while multi-reference evaluation provides a more robust, inclusive, and realistic assessment of automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems. The pairing of each utterance with its eliciting image further enables image retrieval evaluation using both speech and text queries. We evaluate multiple multimodal embedding models for image retrieval and report their performance on the combined speech--image and text--image retrieval tasks. The results reveal a performance gap between text-based and audio-based retrieval, with text-based retrieval consistently achieving higher performance.

eess.AS↗
arXiv2026

Cover First, Disagree Softly: Rethinking Mismatch-First Active Learning for Frame-Level Audio Classification

Sound event detection relies on frame-level strong labels whose annotation is expensive. Active learning addresses this problem by selecting the audio segments whose labels help the classifier most. One of the prevailing acquisition strategies for this task, mismatch-first farthest-traversal (MFFT), combines the disagreement between two classifiers and the diversity of the selected segments through hard sequential decisions. It selects whole groups of high-disagreement segments first and spreads only the remaining budget by farthest traversal. On two multi-label datasets we show that this design is blind to the similarity among the selected segments and fails under low budgets, with every mismatch-first variant ending below the plain geometric strategy it builds on. We propose mismatch-weighted facility location (MW-FL), which spends the entire budget through a disagreement-weighted coverage objective that penalizes similarity among the selected segments. The disagreement signal from MFFT is used to obtain the nonnegative weights of this facility-location objective, using fixed smoothing without dataset-specific tuning. Experiments across two geometric mechanisms with three ways of using disagreement show that coverage of the selected segments is the dominant factor, hard disagreement gating of selection is harmful on both mechanisms, and soft disagreement weighting helps on top of coverage. MW-FL attains the best area under the learning curve on both datasets.

eess.AS↗