In a reverberant environment, sounds reach the ears through several paths. Although the direct sound is followed by multiple reflections, which would be audible in isolation, the first-arriving wavefront dominates many aspects of perception. The "precedence effect" refers to a group of phenomena that are thought to be involved in resolving competition for perception and localization between a direct sound and a reflection. This article is divided into five major sections. First, it begins with a review of recent work on psychoacoustics, which divides the phenomena into measurements of fusion, localization dominance, and discrimination suppression. Second, buildup of precedence and breakdown of precedence are discussed. Third measurements in several animal species, developmental changes in humans, and animal studies are described. Fourth, recent physiological measurements that might be helpful in providing a fuller understanding of precedence effects are reviewed. Fifth, a number of psychophysical models are described which illustrate fundamentally different approaches and have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this review is to provide a framework within which to describe the effects of precedence and to help in the integration of data from both psychophysical and physiological experiments. It is probably only through the combined efforts of these fields that a full theory of precedence will evolve and useful models will be developed.

The "cocktail party problem" was studied using virtual stimuli whose spatial locations were generated using anechoic head-related impulse responses from the AUDIS database [Blauert et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 3082 (1998)]. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for Harvard IEEE sentences presented from the front in the presence of one, two, or three interfering sources. Four types of interferer were used: (1) other sentences spoken by the same talker, (2) time-reversed sentences of the same talker, (3) speech-spectrum shaped noise, and (4) speech-spectrum shaped noise, modulated by the temporal envelope of the sentences. Each interferer was matched to the spectrum of the target talker. Interferers were placed in several spatial configurations, either coincident with or separated from the target. Binaural advantage was derived by subtracting SRTs from listening with the "better monaural ear" from those for binaural listening. For a single interferer, there was a binaural advantage of 2-4 dB for all interferer types. For two or three interferers, the advantage was 2-4 dB for noise and speech-modulated noise, and 6-7 dB for speech and time-reversed speech. These data suggest that the benefit of binaural hearing for speech intelligibility is especially pronounced when there are multiple voiced interferers at different locations from the target, regardless of spatial configuration; measurements with fewer or with other types of interferers can underestimate this benefit.

Speech recognition performance was measured in normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners with maskers consisting of either steady-state speech-spectrum-shaped noise or a competing sentence. Target sentences from a male talker were presented in the presence of one of three competing talkers (same male, different male, or female) or speech-spectrum-shaped noise generated from this talker at several target-to-masker ratios. For the normal-hearing listeners, target-masker combinations were processed through a noise-excited vocoder designed to simulate a cochlear implant. With unprocessed stimuli, a normal-hearing control group maintained high levels of intelligibility down to target-to-masker ratios as low as 0 dB and showed a release from masking, producing better performance with single-talker maskers than with steady-state noise. In contrast, no masking release was observed in either implant or normal-hearing subjects listening through an implant simulation. The performance of the simulation and implant groups did not improve when the single-talker masker was a different talker compared to the same talker as the target speech, as was found in the normal-hearing control. These results are interpreted as evidence for a significant role of informational masking and modulation interference in cochlear implant speech recognition with fluctuating maskers. This informational masking may originate from increased target-masker similarity when spectral resolution is reduced.

Objective-To determine the efficacy of "simultaneous" bilateral cochlear implantation (both implants placed during a single surgical procedure) by comparing bilateral and unilateral implant use in a large number of adult subjects tested at multiple sites.Design-Prospective study of 37 adults with postlinguistic onset of bilateral, severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Performance with the bilateral cochlear implants, using the same speech processor type and speech processing strategy, was compared with performance using the left implant alone and the right implant alone. Speech understanding in quiet (CNCs and HINT sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN Test) were evaluated at several postactivation time intervals, with speech presented at 0° azimuth, and noise at either 0°, 90° right, or 90° left in the horizontal plane. APHAB questionnaire data were collected after each subject underwent a 3-wk "bilateral deprivation" period, during which they wore only the speech processor that produced the best score during unilateral testing, and also after a period of listening again with the bilateral implants.Results-By 6-mo postactivation, a significant advantage for speech understanding in quiet was found in the bilateral listening mode compared with either unilateral listening modes. For speech understanding in noise, the largest and most robust bilateral benefit was when the subject was able to take advantage of the head shadow effect; i.e., results were significantly better for bilateral listening compared with the unilateral condition when the ear opposite to the side of the noise was added to create the bilateral condition. This bilateral benefit was seen on at least one of the two unilateral ear comparisons for nearly all (32/34) subjects. Bilateral benefit was also found for a few subjects in spatial configurations that evaluated binaural redundancy and binaural squelch effects. A subgroup of subjects who had asymmetrical unilateral implant performances were, overall, similar in performance to subjects with symmetrical hearing. The questionnaire data indicated that bilateral users perceive their own performance to be better with bilateral cochlear implants than when using a single device.Conclusions-Findings with a large patient group are in agreement with previous reports on smaller groups, showing that, overall, bilateral implantation offers the majority of patients advantages when listening in simulated adverse conditions. Persons with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss have traditionally received a single cochlear implant. To date, health care professionals have recommended unilateral, rather than bilateral, cochlear implant fittings for these patients for several reasons, including: 1) cost/reimbursement issues, 2) preservation of one ear for future technologies, 3) additional risk of two, or extended, surgeries, and 4) lack of sufficient objective and/or subjective evidence documenting bilateral cochlear implant benefit. Although unilateral use of cochlear implants NIH-PA A...

Objectives This study measured the impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort. Systematic degradation in spectral resolution was hypothesized to elicit corresponding systematic increases in pupil dilation, consistent with the notion of pupil dilation as a marker of cognitive load. Design Spectral resolution of sentences was varied with 2 different vocoders: (1) a noise channel vocoder with a variable number of spectral channels; and (2) a vocoder designed to simulate front-end processing of a cochlear implant, including peak-picking channel selection with variable synthesis filter slopes to simulate spread of neural excitation. Pupil dilation was measured after subject-specific luminance adjustment and trial-specific baseline measures. Mixed-effects growth curve analysis was used to model pupillary responses over time. Results For both types of vocoder, pupil dilation grew with each successive degradation in spectral resolution. Within each condition, pupillary responses were not related to intelligibility scores, and the effect of spectral resolution on pupil dilation persisted even when only analyzing trials in which responses were 100% correct. Conclusions Intelligibility scores alone were not sufficient to quantify the effort required to understand speech with poor resolution. Degraded spectral resolution results in increased effort required to understand speech, even when intelligibility is at 100%. Pupillary responses were a sensitive and highly granular measurement to reveal changes in listening effort. Pupillary responses might potentially reveal the benefits of aural prostheses that are not captured by speech intelligibility performance alone, as well as the disadvantages that are overcome by increased listening effort.