Validating a Rapid, Automated Test of Spatial Release From Masking

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the test–retest reliability of a headphone-based spatial release from a masking task with two maskers (referred to here as the SR2) and to describe its relationship to the same test done over loudspeakers in an anechoic chamber (the SR2A). We explore what thresholds tell us about certain populations (such as older individuals or individuals with hearing impairment) and discuss how the SR2 might be useful in the clinic.MethodFifty-four participants completed speech intelligibility tests in which a target phrase and two masking phrases from the Coordinate Response Measure corpus (Bolia, Nelson, Ericson, & Simpson, 2000) were presented either via earphones using a virtual spatial array or via loudspeakers in an anechoic chamber. For the SR2, the target sentence was always at 0° azimuth angle, and the maskers were either colocated at 0° or positioned at ± 45°. For the SR2A, the target was located at 0°, and the maskers were colocated or located at ± 15°, ± 30°, ± 45°, ± 90°, or ± 135°. Spatial release from masking was determined as the difference between thresholds in the colocated condition and each spatially separated condition. All participants completed the SR2 at least twice, and 29 of the individuals who completed the SR2 at least twice also participated in the SR2A. In a second experiment, 40 participants completed the SR2 8 times, and the changes in performance were evaluated as a function of test repetition.ResultsMean thresholds were slightly better on the SR2 after the first repetition but were consistent across 8 subsequent testing sessions. Performance was consistent for the SR2A, regardless of the number of times testing was repeated. The SR2, which simulates 45° separations of target and maskers, produced spatially separated thresholds that were similar to thresholds obtained with 30° of separation in the anechoic chamber. Over headphones and in the anechoic chamber, pure-tone average was a strong predictor of spatial release, whereas age only reached significance for colocated conditions.ConclusionsThe SR2 is a reliable and effective method of testing spatial release from masking, suitable for screening abnormal listening abilities and for tracking rehabilitation over time. Future work should focus on developing and validating rapid, automated testing to identify the ability of listeners to benefit from high-frequency amplification, smaller spatial separations, and larger spectral differences among talkers.

Portable Automated Rapid Testing (PART) for auditory assessment: Validation in a young adult normal-hearing population

“…While there were statistically significant differences between sessions in the spectral modulation detection test and the tone-in-noise tests, these changes were quite small, with magnitudes of less than 1 dB. The speech intelligibility test in the separated condition showed a significant difference of greater than 1 dB, which is consistent with the 1.58 dB difference previously reported by Jakien et al (2017).…”

“…Although a number of candidate tests have been developed and are relatively well studied in laboratory settings (e.g. Moore et al, 1987;Grose and Mamo, 2012;Bernstein et al, 2013;Gallun et al, 2014;Füllgrabe, Moore & Stone, 2015;Jakien et al, 2017;Hoover, Souza & Gallun, 2017;, very few of these tests have been translated into standard clinical practice. Those tests that have been translated into the clinic are generally only used by audiologists with expertise in APDs because the testing often requires specialized equipment or setup and a calibrated The psychophysical test battery evaluated here was designed to reflect a description of the central auditory system inspired by current research in psychoacoustics and auditory neuroscience (e.g., Stecker & Gallun, 2012;Bernstein et al, 2013;Depireux, Simon, Klein & Shamma, 2000).…”

“…This test allows the evaluation not only of peripheral frequency selectivity but also frequency processing efficiency (Patterson, 1976;Moore & Glasberg, 1990;Stone et al, 1992;Bergman et al, 1992). To address auditory scene analysis in the context of speech and binaural listening, spatial release from masking (SRM; Marrone et al, 2008;Gallun et al, 2013;Jakien et al, 2017; was assessed using the Coordinate Response Measure (CRM) corpus (Bolia et al, 2000). Following the methods of Gallun et al (2013) speech understanding was assess both with speech maskers colocated with the target speech in simulated space, as well as with the maskers separated from the target by 45 degrees in simulated space.…”

Age-Related Deficits in Electrophysiological and Behavioral Measures of Binaural Temporal Processing

“…Many common behavioral tests of binaural temporal processing tend to require extensive training periods on the part of the examiner and the listener as well as a high number of stimulus repetitions to obtain reliable estimates of binaural sensitivity (Stecker and Gallun, 2012). These issues have motivated recent research efforts that focus on new implementations of existing laboratory tests which would not require extensive resources, time, or training on the part of the experimenter or participant (Gallun et al, 2013;Moore, 2017, 2018;Jakien et al, 2017;Jakien and Gallun, 2018;Hoover et al, 2019;Lelo de Larrea-Mancera et al, 2020). Hoover et al (2019) recently adapted a dichotic frequency modulation (FM) detection task that uses a frequency modulated signal that is inverted in phase at one ear relative to the other to create IPD cues (Grose and Mamo, 2012b;Whiteford et al, 2015).…”

Spatial Release from Masking Using Clinical Corpora: Sentence Recognition in a Colocated or Spatially Separated Speech Masker

“…Although the ability of listeners with hearing impairments to use binaural cues is highly variable (Gallun et al, 2013 9 ), there is currently no standard clinical assessment ofbinaural hearing on speech perception in complex listening environments. Several groups have developed tests for evaluating these abilities over headphones (Cameron and Dillon, 2007; 7 Jakien et al, 2017 14 ), but these tools are not designed for clinical testing in the free field, and as such are not appropriate for evaluating performance in hearing aid and cochlear implant users. The present study evaluated spatial release from masking (SRM) among five widely available speech perception tests with speech maskers to assess whether they could be used in the clinical assessment of binaural masked speech perception in the free field.…”