Relating interaural difference sensitivities for several parameters measured in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Abstract

Just-noticeable differences (JNDs) in interaural time delay (ITD), interaural level difference (ILD), and interaural cross-correlation (ICC) were measured with low-and high-frequency noise bands over multiple sessions for 10 normal-hearing (NH) and 11 hearing-impaired (HI) listeners. Individual subject thresholds tended to improve with training then stabilize. Measured JNDs varied over these experienced listeners, for both subject groups and all tasks. Group JNDs were seldom predictable from hearing level. Individual listeners' JNDs were highly correlated across frequency for each task and group, except for ICC in the HI listeners. Further, ITD JNDs almost always significantly correlated with ILD JNDs within a group. Finally, although the ICC JNDs always significantly correlated with the ITD or ILD JNDs for the NH listeners, they often did not for the HI listeners. These findings suggest that little information about binaural sensitivity is added for NH listeners with multiple ITD, ILD, and ICC measures. For HI listeners, however, while ITD and ILD measures are well correlated, information is added with ICC measures. In general, the results suggest that less information is added with JND measures for NH listeners (15 significant correlations) than for HI listeners (six significant correlations).

A framework for computational modelling of interaural time difference discrimination of normal and hearing-impaired listeners

“…7). The predictions of the datasets from Smoski and Trahiotis (1986) and Spencer et al (2016) were very close to the reported mean values. The predictions of the datasets from Hawkins and Wightman (1980) and Gabriel et al (1992) 2 were also able to follow the data trend, although thresholds were overestimated.…”

“…Figure 9 shows the model's predictions for bandpass noise in HI listeners. It includes data reported by Gabriel et al (1992), Hawkins and Wightman (1980), Smoski and Trahiotis (1986), and Spencer et al (2016). Overall, the framework is capable of following the trends of behavioral data.…”

“…In the HI case, we predicted ITD thresholds for bandpass noise from the same datasets as in the NH case (Gabriel et al, 1992;Hawkins and Wightman, 1980;Smoski and Trahiotis, 1986;Spencer et al, 2016). Figure 9 shows that the framework was able to predict the behavioral trend at a group level.…”

“…While substantial progress has been achieved in the study of how normal-hearing (NH) listeners process ITD cues (Bernstein, 2001;Blauert, 1997;Colburn et al, 2006;Grothe et al, 2010;McAlpine, 2005;Stecker and Gallun, 2012;Wang and Brown, 2005), this is not the case for hearing-impaired (HI) listeners (Akeroyd and Whitmer, 2016;Durlach et al, 1981;Moore, 2007). HI listeners frequently present large inter-subject variability (Gabriel et al, 1992;Hawkins and Wightman, 1980;Smoski and Trahiotis, 1986;Spencer et al, 2016). Furthermore, it is hard to discern if the HI listeners' binaural hearing ability was affected because of HI itself or because of confounding factors, such as effort, concentration on the task, or age (Gallun et al, 2014;King et al, 2014;Peelle and Wingfield, 2016).…”

Listening through hearing aids affects spatial perception and speech intelligibility in normal-hearing listeners

“…A number of studies have explored the possibility that hearing loss impedes spatial perception, e.g., in terms of localization ability (Noble et al , 1994; Lorenzi et al , 1999; Best et al , 2010; Best et al , 2011; Hassager et al , 2017) or ITD discrimination performance (e.g., Durlach et al , 1981; Strelcyk and Dau, 2009; Spencer et al , 2016). Furthermore, several studies have suggested that HAs can disrupt the auditory cues involved in spatial perception (Van den Bogaert et al , 2006; Wiggins and Seeber, 2012; Akeroyd and Whitmer, 2016; Cubick and Dau, 2016; Hassager et al , 2017).…”