145 18 44 3 397 document 44 RobertsSummersBailey2015_Exp2_15Jul15_1a.ods application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet ac9e6e6f6d6b541bbb43c97c9bff2622 MD5 94232 2016-11-14 09:45:36 https://researchdata.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/145/1/RobertsSummersBailey2015_Exp2_15Jul15_1a.ods 145 1 1 application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet spreadsheet en public cc_by_4

RobertsSummersBailey2015_Exp2_15Jul15_1a.ods

45 3 399 document 45 RobertsSummersBailey2015_Exp1_15Jul15_1a.ods application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet 25faffca91aaeb79f05fca9c3de37f96 MD5 95193 2016-11-14 09:45:39 https://researchdata.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/145/2/RobertsSummersBailey2015_Exp1_15Jul15_1a.ods 145 2 2 application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet spreadsheet en public cc_by_4

RobertsSummersBailey2015_Exp1_15Jul15_1a.ods

archive 3 disk0/00/00/01/45 2016-11-16 15:35:28 2022-03-10 12:40:28 2016-11-16 15:35:28 data_collection show Roberts Brian Summers Robert pub D204 public auditory grouping, formant integration, informational masking, source characteristics, speech intelligibility 2015-07-16 published American Psychological Association 10.17036/7428fbe0-d7fe-41f5-a53a-32e9726254cd http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000038 Economic and Social Research Council Understanding speech in the presence of other speech: Perceptual mechanisms for auditory scene analysis in human listeners Dataset These datasets comprise listeners’ transcriptions of sentence-length speech stimuli for Experiments 1 and 2 of the article of the same title (Roberts, Summers, and Bailey, 2015). Each spreadsheet comprises a summary worksheet and the raw data for each listener. The summary worksheet contains aggregated scores (Keywords correct by tight scoring, see below) for each listener in each condition, with relevant demographic information. Subsequent worksheets comprise the raw data for each listener and stimulus. 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 (note: condition number in the article does not always correspond to that assigned when the experiment was run), (d) the number of times the listener heard the stimulus (up to 6 in these experiments), (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. Roberts Brian Summers Robert Economic and Social Research Council ES/K004905/1 Aston University Birmingham, United Kingdom English 2015-07-16 2015-07-16 2025-07-16 Delete if data has not been accessed http://publications.aston.ac.uk/25859/ 2015-07-16