Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study

Esch, T.E.M. van; Kollmeier, Birger; Vormann, Matthias; Lyzenga, Johannes; Houtgast, Tammo; Hällgren, Mathias; Larsby, Birgitta; Athalye, Sheetal; Lutman, Mark E.; Dreschler, Wouter A.

doi:10.3109/14992027.2012.759665

Cited by 39 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the HI listeners ( Ͻ 10%) found the test too hard to complete. MAA results from the preliminary auditory profi le test battery were closely comparable to previously published results ( Van Esch et al, 2013).…”

supporting

confidence: 85%

“…A virtual version of the minimum audible angle (MAA) test was chosen (Mills, 1985;Hafter et al, 1992;Grantham et al, 2003). Van Esch et al (2013) reported a small learning effect but no signifi cant effect of test centre, and good correspondence between test and retest measurements. Some of the HI listeners ( Ͻ 10%) found the test too hard to complete.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the preliminary auditory profi le test battery, spatial hearing was measured psychophysically by means of a virtual minimum audible angle (MAA) test, and by two virtual spatial speech reception threshold (SRT) tests in noise, the spatial SRT benefi t test and the binaural SRT benefi t test ( Van Esch et al, 2013). A virtual version of the minimum audible angle (MAA) test was chosen (Mills, 1985;Hafter et al, 1992;Grantham et al, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Relations between psychophysical measures of spatial hearing and self-reported spatial-hearing abilities

Esch

Lutman

Vormann³

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relations between psychophysical measures of spatial hearing and self-reported spatial-hearing abilities

Esch

Lutman

Vormann³

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…van Esch et al, 2013). An example of the questionnaire method can be found in the multi-dimensional speech, spatial, and qualities (SSQ) hearing scale (Gatehouse and Noble, 2004) Although this paper did not appear in the web of knowledge literature search, we felt that it was worth including given its potential use as a behavioural measure of listening effort and/or fatigue over time.…”

Section: Self-reported Listening Effortmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Self-report judgments of effort are also used during experimental listening tasks. In one large-scale study, participants were asked to indicate (on a 100-point scale) how ' effortful ' they found each particular trial in an auditory profi le test battery (van Esch et al, 2013). As expected, hearing-impaired participants gave signifi cantly higher ' effort ' ratings than their normal-hearing counterparts in all listening conditions.…”

Section: Self-reported Listening Effortmentioning

confidence: 98%

Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’

McGarrigle

Munro

Dawes

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

411

386

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following recent interest in the cognitive involvement in hearing, the British Society of Audiology (BSA) established a Special Interest Group on Cognition in Hearing in May 2013. In an exploratory group meeting, the ambiguity surrounding listening effort and fatigue was discussed. To address this problem, the group decided to develop a 'white paper' on listening effort and fatigue. This is a discussion document followed by an international set of commentaries from leading researchers in the field. An approach was made to the editor of the International Journal of Audiology who agreed to this suggestion. This paper, and the associated commentaries that follow, are the result.

show abstract

Spatial Hearing and Hearing Aids

Akeroyd

Whitmer

2016

Hearing Aids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial hearing is a central part of everyday listening. The ability to determine the direction of a sound source is a natural and effortless skill that is only remarked on in rare or challenging circumstances, such as when a driver cannot determine the direction of the siren of a passing ambulance. But spatial hearing performance by hearing-impaired listeners is considerably degraded, and generally hearing aids do not offer any benefit.In most circumstances -excepting only if a sound source is exactly directly ahead, above, or behind -the fine details of a sound's waveform at the left ear will differ in some way from those at the right ear. The auditory system is sensitive to these interaural ("between the ears") differences. Imagine that the source is to the right of someone's head. The left ear is further from the source than the right ear, by about 18-20 cm, so the sound will arrive there a fraction of a millisecond after it arrives at the right ear. The left ear is also in the acoustic shadow cast by the head, so the sound's level will be less there than at the right ear. Both interaural cues physically occur at all frequencies, but their importance varies with frequency. The interaural level differences (ILDs) can reach 20 or 30 dB at frequencies around 5-10 kHz, but are less than 5 dB below 500 Hz. ILDs are therefore generally regarded as being most useful at high frequencies. Conversely, the interaural time differences (ITDs) -at most, about 600-800 millionths of a second -are primarily a lowfrequency cue, useful up to around 1500 Hz Many laboratory experiments have demonstrated that normal-hearing listeners are remarkably sensitive to these two cues: at best, people can discriminate changes of about 0.5 dB of ILD or 10 millionths of a second of ITD. But in everyday listening people are never called onto discriminate pure changes in ILD or ITD in isolation: when the direction of a source changes, both cues vary. At best, the discrimination for changes in direction is about 1 degree of spatial angle. This is the "minimal audible angle": one can reliably distinguish the left vs. right direction of two sounds, presented in quiet, 1 degree apart. These measurements can be made directly using very closely-spaced loudspeakers or with robot arms to accurately move loudspeakers by very small amounts. An alternative approach is to use a fixed loudspeaker array with relatively large spacing between loudspeakers, such as 15 degrees, and then measure how inaccurate listeners are at reporting the direction of sounds presented from them.One degree of angle is really not very much: it corresponds to the apparent width of the index fingernail held at arm's length. Comparative measurements in mammals have demonstrated that humans have amongst the best performance: of all species measured so far; only dolphins and elephants do as well or better (Heffner, 2004). It is curious why we should be so good at distinguishing sound direction in quiet. Perhaps it is a by-product -an evolutionary spandrel (Gould and Lewontin, 1979) ...

show abstract

Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study

Abstract: The auditory profile forms a clinical test battery that is applicable in four different languages. Even after baseline correction, differences between test materials have to be taken into account when interpreting results of language-dependent tests in HI listeners.

Cited by 39 publications

References 49 publications

Relations between psychophysical measures of spatial hearing and self-reported spatial-hearing abilities

Relations between psychophysical measures of spatial hearing and self-reported spatial-hearing abilities

Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’

Spatial Hearing and Hearing Aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About