An Overview of the Major Phenomena of the Localization of Sound Sources by Normal-Hearing, Hearing-Impaired, and Aided Listeners

Akeroyd, Michael A.

doi:10.1177/2331216514560442

Cited by 51 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies in [11], [12] defined responses as FBCs if the maximum deviation from the FBC center was less than or equal to a 40 or 45-degree angle. Such a static threshold value is not feasible in clinical studies with hearing-impaired subjects, due to the large differences in localization accuracy between the NH control and the test group [14]. An explanation of the underlying theoretical and psychoacoustic mechanism would be missing for the justification of such a threshold value.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Front-Back Confusion Metric in Horizontal Sound Localization: The FBC Score

Fischer

Caversaccio

Wimmer

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In sound localization experiments, currently used metrics for front-back confusion (FBC) analysis weight the occurring FBCs equally, regardless of their deviation from the cone of confusion. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the FBC Score. A sound localization experiment in the horizontal plane with 12 bilaterally implanted cochlear implants (CI) users and 12 normal hearing subjects was performed to validate the method with real clinical data. The overall FBC Rate of the CI users was twice as high as the FBC Score. For the control group, the FBC Rate was 4 times higher than the FBC Score. The results indicate that the FBC Rate is inflated by FBCs that show a considerable deviation from the corresponding value on the cone of confusion.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may be especially important when evaluating the performance of hearing-impaired patients in clinical trials. These localization results often show a wide individual variability [14] and consist of limited samples due to the limited testing time and subject attention.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Front-Back Confusion Metric in Horizontal Sound Localization: The FBC Score

Fischer

Caversaccio

Wimmer

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier studies on auditory localization mostly investigated adult participants, and results must be differentiated between the performance of aided and unaided persons, i.e., hearing-impaired participants with or without wearing the hearing aid or with different adjustments of, for example, directionality of the microphones [Lorenzi et al, 1999;Drennan et al, 2005;Van den Bogaert et al, 2006;Keidser, et al, 2009;Best et al, 2011]. In general, hearing-impaired listeners perform worse in experiments on spatial hearing than normal-hearing subjects [Akeroyd, 2014]. When wearing their hearing aids, the respective performance was even worse, which might be due to the alteration of microphone directionality in different settings of the hearing aid [Keidser, et al, 2009].…”

Section: Impact Of Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Localization and Spatial Discrimination in Children and Adolescents with Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss Tested without Their Hearing Aids

Meuret

Ludwig²,

Predel

et al. 2017

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated two measures of spatial acoustic perception in children and adolescents with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) tested without their hearing aids and compared it to age-matched controls. Auditory localization was quantified by means of a sound source identification task and auditory spatial discrimination acuity by measuring minimum audible angles (MAA). Both low- and high-frequency noise bursts were employed in the tests to separately address spatial auditory processing based on interaural time and intensity differences. In SNHL children, localization (hit accuracy) was significantly reduced compared to normal-hearing children and intraindividual variability (dispersion) considerably increased. Given the respective impairments, the performance based on interaural time differences (low frequencies) was still better than that based on intensity differences (high frequencies). For MAA, age-matched comparisons yielded not only increased MAA values in SNHL children, but also no decrease with increasing age compared to normal-hearing children. Deficits in MAA were most apparent in the frontal azimuth. Thus, children with SNHL do not seem to benefit from frontal positions of the sound sources as do normal-hearing children. The results give an indication that the processing of spatial cues in SNHL children is restricted, which could also imply problems regarding speech understanding in challenging hearing situations.

show abstract

“…Sound localization is additionally impaired by hearing loss, with the nature of impairment depending on the type of hearing loss experienced (Lorenzi et al, 1999a; Best et al, 2011; Dobreva et al, 2011; Akeroyd, 2014; Brungart et al, 2014). Under normal hearing conditions, sound localization relies on the relative timing and level of input to the two ears (Interaural Time Differences: ITDs; Interaural Level Differences: ILDs)(Middlebrooks and Green, 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although background noise is a common feature of everyday life, previous studies of unilateral hearing loss have tested sound localization in quiet environments. For many auditory abilities, individuals with hearing loss typically experience greater difficulty in the presence of background noise (Moore, 1996; Bronkhorst, 2000; Lorenzi et al, 2006; Helfer and Freyman, 2008; Akeroyd, 2014). Consequently, we might expect individuals with simulated unilateral hearing loss to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of background noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using background noise to improve sound localization following simulated hearing loss

Ryan-Warden

Keating

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many listening abilities become more difficult in noisy environments, particularly following hearing loss. Sound localization can be disrupted even if target sounds are clearly audible and distinct from background noise. Since subjects locate sounds by comparing the input to the two ears, sound localization is also considerably impaired by unilateral hearing loss. Currently, however, it is unclear whether the effects of unilateral hearing loss are worsened by background noise. To address this, we measured sound localization abilities in the presence or absence of broadband background noise. Adult human subjects of either sex were tested with normal hearing or with a simulated hearing loss in one ear (earplug). To isolate the role of binaural processing, we tested subjects with narrowband target sounds. Surprisingly, we found that continuous background noise improved narrowband sound localization following simulated unilateral hearing loss. By contrast, we found the opposite effect under normal hearing conditions, with background noise producing illusory shifts in sound localization. Previous attempts to model these shifts are inconsistent with behavioural and neurophysiological data. However, here we found that a simple hemispheric model of sound localization provides an explanation for our results, and provides key hypotheses for future neurophysiological studies. Overall, our results suggest that continuous background noise may be used to improve sound localization under the right circumstances. This has important implications for real-world hearing, both in normal-hearing subjects and the hearing-impaired.Significance StatementIn noisy environments, many listening abilities become more difficult, even if target sounds are clearly audible. For example, background noise can produce illusory shifts in the perceived direction of target sounds. Because sound localization relies on the two ears working together, it is also distorted by a hearing loss in one ear. We might therefore expect background noise to worsen the effects of unilateral hearing loss. Surprisingly, we found the opposite, with background noise improving sound localization when we simulated a hearing loss in one ear. A simple hemispheric model of sound localization also helped explain the negative effects of background noise under normal hearing conditions. Overall, our results highlight the potential for using background noise to improve sound localization.

show abstract

An Overview of the Major Phenomena of the Localization of Sound Sources by Normal-Hearing, Hearing-Impaired, and Aided Listeners

Cited by 51 publications

References 52 publications

A Front-Back Confusion Metric in Horizontal Sound Localization: The FBC Score

A Front-Back Confusion Metric in Horizontal Sound Localization: The FBC Score

Localization and Spatial Discrimination in Children and Adolescents with Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss Tested without Their Hearing Aids

Using background noise to improve sound localization following simulated hearing loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About