Data underpinning article "Informational masking of speech by time-varying competitors: Effects of frequency region and number of interfering formants"

Metadata

Creators: Roberts, Brian and Summers, Robert
Keywords: Speech perception, Transcriptions, Informational Masking
Divisions: Life and Health Sciences > Basic and Applied Neurosciences
Life and Health Sciences > Sensory and Perceptual Systems
Funders: Economic and Social Research Council
Projects: Interference in spoken communication: Evaluating the corrupting and disrupting effects of other voices
Grant number: ES/N014383/1
Data Publisher: Aston University
Date Made Available: 20 December 2017
Collection period:
FromTo
20162016
Data Collection and Processing Methods: These datasets comprise listeners’ transcriptions of sentence-length speech analogues for Experiments 1 and 2 of the article of the same title (Roberts and Summers, 2018; Journal of the Acoustical Society of America). There are two spreadsheets for each experiment; one comprising keyword scores and one comprising phonemic scores. Each spreadsheet comprises a summary worksheet and the raw data for each listener. The summary worksheet contains aggregated scores (keywords correct by tight scoring or phonemic scores, see below) for each listener in each condition, with relevant demographic information. Subsequent worksheets comprise the raw data for each listener and stimulus. For the spreadsheets containing the keyword scores, the raw data comprise: (a) the stimulus presented [Column heading: Text], (b) the listener’s response [Transcription], (c) the condition number for which the stimulus was presented [Condition], (d) the number of times the listener heard the stimulus (always once in this experiment), (e) the number of keywords in the stimulus, (f) the loose score (number of keywords reported correctly for which the stem of the word is correct – e.g., “type”, “types”, and “typed” would all be marked correct for keyword “typing”; the loose score was not analysed but is included for completeness), and (g) the tight score (only exactly reported keywords are marked as correct; homonyms are accepted). The mean scores (loose or tight) for each condition are computed by dividing the number of correct keywords reported for all 6 sentences in the condition by the total number of keywords. For the spreadsheets containing the phonemic scores, the raw data comprise: (a) the stimulus presented [Column heading: Text], (b) the listener’s response [Transcription], (c) the condition number for which the stimulus was presented [Condition], (d) the number of times the listener heard the stimulus (always once in this experiment), (e) the number of correct phonemes in the transcription, (f) the number of phonemes in the transcription that were not in the stimulus and had to be deleted to provide an optimal alignment between stimulus and transcription [deletions], (g) the number of phonemes in the transcription that were not in the stimulus and had to be substituted to provide an optimal alignment [substitutions], (h) the number of phonemes that needed to be inserted into the transcription to provide an optimal alignment [insertions], (i) the total number of phonemes in the stimulus [Num Phonemes], (j) the % accuracy for each sentence (100 * ([Correct phonemes] - [Insertions])/[Num Phonemes]); the accuracy score was not analysed but is included for completeness, (k) the % correct phonemes (100 * [Correct phonemes]/[Num Phonemes]). The mean proportion of phonemes correct for each condition is computed by dividing the number of correct phonemes reported for all 6 sentences in the condition by the total number of phonemes.
Identification Number: https://doi.org/10.17036/researchdata.aston.ac.uk.00000309

Download

[img]
[img]
[img]
[img]

Usage

Additional statistics for this record