Speech Perception Challenges: The Role of Second Language Experience Across Masker Types in native Malayalam speakers for Low-frequency Phonetically balanced words
,
Abstract
Background and Aim: Speech perception in noise is influenced by factors like masker type, language familiarity, and the listener’s linguistic experience. In multilingual contexts like India, understanding how second language learning affects native language speech processing is crucial and remains relatively underexplored. The study aimed to examine the effect of learning a new language on speech perception of low-frequency, phonetically balanced (PB) native Malayalam words in the presence of different masker conditions.
Methods: A cross-sectional study included 54 native Malayalam-speaking participants (18-25 years) in two groups: Experienced (n=27; >4 years of Kannada exposure) and non-experienced (n=27; no Kannada exposure). Signal-to-noise ratio for 50% correct recognition (SNR-50) and masking release were assessed using the Malayalam low-frequency phonetically balanced (PB)words in the presence of 2-talker (2TB) and 4-talker babble (4TB) in Malayalam, Kannada, and speech-shaped noise (SSN).
Results: In both experienced and non-experienced participants, SNR-50 performance followed 2TB > SSN > 4TB. Both groups performed better with native (Malayalam) than non-native (Kannada) maskers. However, no significant differences were observed between the groups. Interestingly, for masking release, the non-experienced group showed slightly more with 2 TB and the non-native (Kannada) masker (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Findings indicated that exposure to Kannada did not produce a significant advantage in perceiving Malayalam low-frequency PB words in different noise conditions. Future studies with larger samples and different levels of proficiency may further clarify the role of language exposure in speech perception in noise.
1. Cooke M. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(3):1562-73. DOI: 10.1121/1.2166600
2. Brungart DS. Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 May;109(5 Pt 1):2276-9. DOI: 10.1121/1.1357812
3. Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Oct;88(4):1725-36. DOI: 10.1121/1.400247
4. Li JY, Wang X, Nie S, Zhu MY, Liu JX, Wei L, Li H, Wang NY, Zhang J. Neural encoding for spatial release from informational masking and its correlation with behavioral metrics. J Neurophysiol. 2024 Oct 1;132(4):1265-1277. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00279.2024
5. Van Engen KJ, Bradlow AR. Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Jan;121(1):519-26. DOI: 10.1121/1.2400666
6. Brouwer S, Van Engen KJ, Calandruccio L, Bradlow AR. Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Feb;131(2):1449-64. DOI: 10.1121/1.3675943
7. Jain C, Konadath S, Vimal BM, Suresh V. Influence of Native and Non-Native Multitalker Babble on Speech Recognition in Noise. Audiol Res. 2014 May 20;4(1):89. DOI: 10.4081/audiores.2014.89
8. Barman A, Prabhu P, Narne KV, Thammaiah S, Singh KN, Gupta M. Development and standardization of auditory low-frequency word lists in Hindi. J Hear Sci. 2016;6(4):39–49. [DOI: 10.17430/899781]
9. Citrayasa V, Marsella E, Nernere MS. Strategies of vocabulary learning employed by low-frequency-word level students in international class. Journal on English as a Foreign Language. 2022;12(1):97-116. [DOI:10.23971/jefl.v12i1.3535]
10. Paradis J, Jia R. Bilingual children's long-term outcomes in English as a second language: language environment factors shape individual differences in catching up with monolinguals. Dev Sci. 2017 Jan;20(1). DOI: 10.1111/desc.12433
11. Eranna PK, Winston JS, Rachna D, Mahapatra PK. Influence of cross-linguistic exposure on speech perception under informational masking conditions: a cross-sectional study. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2025;41(1):155.
12. Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 May;115(5 Pt 1):2246-56. DOI: 10.1121/1.1689343
13. Hall JW 3rd, Grose JH, Buss E, Dev MB. Spondee recognition in a two-talker masker and a speech-shaped noise masker in adults and children. Ear Hear. 2002 Apr;23(2):159-65. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200204000-00008
14. Narasimhan SV, Sahana K, Yashaswini G, Divyashree D. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire Into Kannada. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2023;66(8):2688-700. [DOI:10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00668]
15. Bisht A., Rachana, D., Mahapatra, PK, Prakash R. et al. Effects of semitone shifts and sex-mismatched maskers on speech perception of low-frequency Malayalam PB words. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2025;41:206. [DOI:10.1186/s43163-025-00960-x]
16. Nike. Speech Spectrum Shaped Noise [Internet]. MATLAB Central File Exchange; 2012. [Retrieved October 4, 2026.fansi]. Available from: https://in.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/55701-speech-spectrum-shaped-noise.
17. B D, Jain C. Central Auditory Processing Abilities in Children with Non-Syndromic Cleft Lip/and Palate-a Behavioural Study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;76(5):4146-52. [DOI:10.1007/s12070-024-04804-7]
18. Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Nov;110(5 Pt 1):2527-38. DOI: 10.1121/1.1408946
19. Darwin CJ. Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Mar 12;363(1493):1011-21. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2156
20. Arbogast TL, Mason CR, Kidd G Jr. The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Nov;112(5 Pt 1):2086-98. DOI: 10.1121/1.1510141
21. Best V, Gallun FJ, Ihlefeld A, Shinn-Cunningham BG. The influence of spatial separation on divided listening. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Sep;120(3):1506-16. DOI: 10.1121/1.2234849
22. Lidestam B, Holgersson J, Moradi S. Comparison of informational vs. energetic masking effects on speechreading performance. Front Psychol. 2014 Jun 24;5:639. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00639
23. Wilson RH, Carnell CS, Cleghorn AL. The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Jun;18(6):522-9. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18.6.7
24. Cutler A, Weber A, Smits R, Cooper N. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Dec;116(6):3668-78. DOI: 10.1121/1.1810292
25. Janse E, Adank P. Predicting foreign-accent adaptation in older adults. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(8):1563-85. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.658822
26. Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A, Sörqvist P, Danielsson H, Lyxell B, Dahlström O, Signoret C, Stenfelt S, Pichora-Fuller MK, Rudner M. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci. 2013 Jul 13;7:31. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031
27. Bialystok E. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
28. Costa A, Hernández M, Costa-Faidella J, Sebastián-Gallés N. On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: now you see it, now you don't. Cognition. 2009 Nov;113(2):135-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.001
29. Krizman J, Marian V, Shook A, Skoe E, Kraus N. Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 May 15;109(20):7877-81. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1201575109
30. Jagadeesh AB, Uppunda AK. Effect of Age on Informational Masking: Differential Effects of Phonetic and Semantic Information in the Masker. Am J Audiol. 2022 Sep;31(3):707-718. DOI: 10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00029
31. Geetha C, Sharath Kumar KS, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardisation of the sentenceidentification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci. 2014;4(1):18–26. [DOI:10.17430/890267]
32. Jagadeesh, AB, Uppunda, AK. Speech-on-Speech Masking: Effect of Maskers with Different Degrees of Linguistic Information. Can J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol. 2021;45(2).143-56
33. Ghosh V, Devananda D, Harisanker SB, Kumar H. Speech perception in noise in malayalam-speaking young adults with normal hearing. J Hear Sci. 2024;14(2):33–8. [DOI:10.17430/jhs/191377]
34. Reetzke R, Lam BP, Xie Z, Sheng L, Chandrasekaran B. Effect of Simultaneous Bilingualism on Speech Intelligibility across Different Masker Types, Modalities, and Signal-to-Noise Ratios in School-Age Children. PLoS One. 2016 Dec 9;11(12):e0168048. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168048
2. Brungart DS. Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 May;109(5 Pt 1):2276-9. DOI: 10.1121/1.1357812
3. Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Oct;88(4):1725-36. DOI: 10.1121/1.400247
4. Li JY, Wang X, Nie S, Zhu MY, Liu JX, Wei L, Li H, Wang NY, Zhang J. Neural encoding for spatial release from informational masking and its correlation with behavioral metrics. J Neurophysiol. 2024 Oct 1;132(4):1265-1277. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00279.2024
5. Van Engen KJ, Bradlow AR. Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Jan;121(1):519-26. DOI: 10.1121/1.2400666
6. Brouwer S, Van Engen KJ, Calandruccio L, Bradlow AR. Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Feb;131(2):1449-64. DOI: 10.1121/1.3675943
7. Jain C, Konadath S, Vimal BM, Suresh V. Influence of Native and Non-Native Multitalker Babble on Speech Recognition in Noise. Audiol Res. 2014 May 20;4(1):89. DOI: 10.4081/audiores.2014.89
8. Barman A, Prabhu P, Narne KV, Thammaiah S, Singh KN, Gupta M. Development and standardization of auditory low-frequency word lists in Hindi. J Hear Sci. 2016;6(4):39–49. [DOI: 10.17430/899781]
9. Citrayasa V, Marsella E, Nernere MS. Strategies of vocabulary learning employed by low-frequency-word level students in international class. Journal on English as a Foreign Language. 2022;12(1):97-116. [DOI:10.23971/jefl.v12i1.3535]
10. Paradis J, Jia R. Bilingual children's long-term outcomes in English as a second language: language environment factors shape individual differences in catching up with monolinguals. Dev Sci. 2017 Jan;20(1). DOI: 10.1111/desc.12433
11. Eranna PK, Winston JS, Rachna D, Mahapatra PK. Influence of cross-linguistic exposure on speech perception under informational masking conditions: a cross-sectional study. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2025;41(1):155.
12. Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 May;115(5 Pt 1):2246-56. DOI: 10.1121/1.1689343
13. Hall JW 3rd, Grose JH, Buss E, Dev MB. Spondee recognition in a two-talker masker and a speech-shaped noise masker in adults and children. Ear Hear. 2002 Apr;23(2):159-65. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200204000-00008
14. Narasimhan SV, Sahana K, Yashaswini G, Divyashree D. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire Into Kannada. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2023;66(8):2688-700. [DOI:10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00668]
15. Bisht A., Rachana, D., Mahapatra, PK, Prakash R. et al. Effects of semitone shifts and sex-mismatched maskers on speech perception of low-frequency Malayalam PB words. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2025;41:206. [DOI:10.1186/s43163-025-00960-x]
16. Nike. Speech Spectrum Shaped Noise [Internet]. MATLAB Central File Exchange; 2012. [Retrieved October 4, 2026.fansi]. Available from: https://in.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/55701-speech-spectrum-shaped-noise.
17. B D, Jain C. Central Auditory Processing Abilities in Children with Non-Syndromic Cleft Lip/and Palate-a Behavioural Study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;76(5):4146-52. [DOI:10.1007/s12070-024-04804-7]
18. Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Nov;110(5 Pt 1):2527-38. DOI: 10.1121/1.1408946
19. Darwin CJ. Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Mar 12;363(1493):1011-21. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2156
20. Arbogast TL, Mason CR, Kidd G Jr. The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Nov;112(5 Pt 1):2086-98. DOI: 10.1121/1.1510141
21. Best V, Gallun FJ, Ihlefeld A, Shinn-Cunningham BG. The influence of spatial separation on divided listening. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Sep;120(3):1506-16. DOI: 10.1121/1.2234849
22. Lidestam B, Holgersson J, Moradi S. Comparison of informational vs. energetic masking effects on speechreading performance. Front Psychol. 2014 Jun 24;5:639. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00639
23. Wilson RH, Carnell CS, Cleghorn AL. The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Jun;18(6):522-9. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18.6.7
24. Cutler A, Weber A, Smits R, Cooper N. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Dec;116(6):3668-78. DOI: 10.1121/1.1810292
25. Janse E, Adank P. Predicting foreign-accent adaptation in older adults. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(8):1563-85. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.658822
26. Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A, Sörqvist P, Danielsson H, Lyxell B, Dahlström O, Signoret C, Stenfelt S, Pichora-Fuller MK, Rudner M. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci. 2013 Jul 13;7:31. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031
27. Bialystok E. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
28. Costa A, Hernández M, Costa-Faidella J, Sebastián-Gallés N. On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: now you see it, now you don't. Cognition. 2009 Nov;113(2):135-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.001
29. Krizman J, Marian V, Shook A, Skoe E, Kraus N. Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 May 15;109(20):7877-81. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1201575109
30. Jagadeesh AB, Uppunda AK. Effect of Age on Informational Masking: Differential Effects of Phonetic and Semantic Information in the Masker. Am J Audiol. 2022 Sep;31(3):707-718. DOI: 10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00029
31. Geetha C, Sharath Kumar KS, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardisation of the sentenceidentification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci. 2014;4(1):18–26. [DOI:10.17430/890267]
32. Jagadeesh, AB, Uppunda, AK. Speech-on-Speech Masking: Effect of Maskers with Different Degrees of Linguistic Information. Can J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol. 2021;45(2).143-56
33. Ghosh V, Devananda D, Harisanker SB, Kumar H. Speech perception in noise in malayalam-speaking young adults with normal hearing. J Hear Sci. 2024;14(2):33–8. [DOI:10.17430/jhs/191377]
34. Reetzke R, Lam BP, Xie Z, Sheng L, Chandrasekaran B. Effect of Simultaneous Bilingualism on Speech Intelligibility across Different Masker Types, Modalities, and Signal-to-Noise Ratios in School-Age Children. PLoS One. 2016 Dec 9;11(12):e0168048. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168048
| Files | ||
| Issue | Articles in Press | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Speech perception in noise masking release Malayalam multi-talker babble language exposure | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Mahapatra PK, Rachana D, Prakash R, Bisht A. Speech Perception Challenges: The Role of Second Language Experience Across Masker Types in native Malayalam speakers for Low-frequency Phonetically balanced words. Aud Vestib Res. 2026;.
