Spatial audiometry: detection of spondaic words in noise.

It is important to select appropriate stimuli and test conditions for developing standardized spatial audiometric tests. In three experiments, binaural detection thresholds (BDTs) for a target signal, located at either 0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, or 315 degrees azimuth, were measured in the presence of a masker positioned at one of these eight locations. Target signals included spondaic words from the CID W-1 list. The masker was speech spectrum noise (SSN) or multitalker noise (MTN) presented at a constant level (65 dBA). Bekesy tracking was used to measure BDTs in listeners with normal hearing. Results indicate that BDTs are significantly influenced by the (a) angular separation between the target and noise source and (b) choice of spondaic words used as target stimuli. BDTs for various spondaic words differed as much as 13 dB for a given angular separation. BDTs measured in SSN and MTN for otherwise identical test conditions differed less than 3 dB. A single spondaic word appears to be appropriate for spatial audiometric tests of detection. Nonsignificant differences between masked BDTs obtained for SSN and MTN noises indicate that for spatial detection, the masking effects of these noises are comparable. These results indicate that the development of a clinical test of spatial detection should include the use of SSN and a single spondaic word, with detection being measured for a set of four or five signal and noise source configurations.

[1]  D. M. Green,et al.  Sound localization by human listeners. , 1991, Annual review of psychology.

[2]  A. Duquesnoy The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  R. Link,et al.  The Examination of Directional Hearing, A Simple Clinical Method , 1966 .

[4]  T Letowski,et al.  Effects of age, speech rate, and type of test on temporal auditory processing. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Effect of the orientation of the speaker's head and azimuth of a noise source on the speech reception threshold for sentences , 1980 .

[6]  T R Letowski,et al.  Vowel confusions of hearing-impaired listeners under reverberant and nonreverberant conditions. , 1985, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[7]  T Letowski,et al.  Comprehension of time-compressed speech: effects of age and speech complexity. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  T Frank,et al.  Comparison of the Auditec and Rintelmann recordings of the NU-6. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[9]  W O Olsen,et al.  Masking level differences encountered in clinical populations. , 1976, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[10]  G. R. Bienvenue,et al.  A Clinical Procedure for Evaluating Auditory Localization. , 1974 .

[11]  D D Dirks,et al.  Binaural hearing of speech for aided and unaided conditions. , 1969, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  Luis P. Sanchez Longo,et al.  A Clinical Test for Sound Localization and Its Applications , 1957, Neurology.

[13]  J. Thayer,et al.  The continuing problem of false positives in repeated measures ANOVA in psychophysiology: a multivariate solution. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[14]  W. E. Kock Binaural Localization and Masking , 1950 .

[15]  Michael D. Good,et al.  Masking between Spatially Separated Sounds , 1992 .

[16]  R. Häusler,et al.  Sound localization in subjects with impaired hearing. Spatial-discrimination and interaural-discrimination tests. , 1983, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[17]  T. Letowski,et al.  Relationships between speech recognition threshold, average hearing level, and speech importance noise detection threshold. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[18]  Diana C Emanuel,et al.  Spatial Perception of Speech in Various Signal to Noise Ratios , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[19]  H S Colburn,et al.  Effects of Reference Interaural Time and Intensity Differences on Binaural Performance in Listeners with Normal and Impaired Hearing , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[20]  K. Saberi,et al.  Free-field release from masking. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  E. Shaw Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  R R Coles,et al.  Binaural advantages in hearing of speech , 1971, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[23]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  J M Besing,et al.  A Procedure for Testing Speech Intelligibility in a Virtual Listening Environment , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[25]  B. Nordlund Physical factors in angular localization. , 1962, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[26]  A. Bronkhorst Binaural aspects of speech perception in noise , 1990 .

[27]  T. Letowski,et al.  Understanding of time-compressed speech by older adults: effect of discard interval. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[28]  Joan Besing,et al.  Clinical Applications of 3-D Auditory Tests , 1997 .

[29]  Joan Besing,et al.  Contemporary Approaches to Audiological Assessment in Young Children , 1998 .

[30]  T E WALSH,et al.  Speech Audiometry , 1953, Journal of Laryngology and Otology.

[31]  Gloria L. Calhoun,et al.  Three-Dimensional Auditory Cue Simulation for Crew Station Design/Evaluation , 1987 .

[32]  J M Besing,et al.  A Test of Virtual Auditory Localization , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[33]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Similarities of vowels in nonreverberant and reverberant fields. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  T. Anderson,et al.  Binaural and spatial hearing in real and virtual environments , 1997 .

[35]  T Sone,et al.  Improvement of hearing ability by directional information. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  F. M. Tanning Directional audiometry. I. Directional white-noise audiometry. , 1970 .

[37]  Georg v. Békésy,et al.  A New Audiometer , 1947 .

[38]  Ira J. Hirsh,et al.  The Relation between Localization and Intelligibility , 1950 .

[39]  S. Gelfand,et al.  Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: effects of aging and hearing loss. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  F L Wightman,et al.  Headphone simulation of free-field listening. I: Stimulus synthesis. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  E. de Boer,et al.  Evaluation of Stereophonic Fitting of Hearing Aids to Hard-Of-Hearing Children , 1969 .

[43]  J. Zwislocki,et al.  On the Effect of Practice and Motivation on the Threshold of Audibility , 1958 .

[44]  E WHETNALL,et al.  Binaural hearing , 1897, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[45]  H S Colburn,et al.  Frequency dependence of binaural performance in listeners with impaired binaural hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  F L Wightman,et al.  Headphone simulation of free-field listening. II: Psychophysical validation. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  F M Tonning Directional audiometry. II. The influence of azimuth on the perception of speech. , 1971, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[48]  R. H. Wilson,et al.  Detection and recognition masking-level differences for the individual CID W-1 spondaic words. , 1982, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[49]  F. Alan Andersen,et al.  The American National Standards Institute , 1984, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[50]  Joan Besing,et al.  Effects of listening paradigm on speech recognition , 1997 .