Dynamic sound field audiometry: Static and dynamic spatial hearing tests in the full horizontal plane

Abstract

Although spatial hearing is of great importance in everyday life, today's routine audiological test batteries and static test setups assess sound localization, discrimination and tracking abilities rudimentarily and thus provide only a limited interpretation of treatment outcomes regarding spatial hearing performance. To address this limitation, we designed a dynamic sound field test setup and evaluated the sound localization, discrimination and tracking performance of 12 normal-hearing subjects. During testing, participants provided feedback either through a touchpad or through eye tracking. In addition, the influence of head movement on sound-tracking performance was investigated. Our results show that tracking and discrimination performance was significantly better in the frontal azimuth than in the dorsal azimuth. Particularly good performance was observed in the backward direction across localization, discrimination and tracking tests. As expected, free head movement improved sound-tracking abilities. Furthermore, feedback via gaze detection led to larger tracking errors than feedback via the touchpad. We found statistically significant correlations between the static and dynamic tests, which favor the snapshot theory for auditory motion perception. .

Multichannel acoustic source and image dataset for the cocktail party effect in hearing aid and implant users

“…the participant's head or a head and torso simulator (Brüel & Kjaer, Type 4128, Naerum, Denmark) at ear level (see Fig. 1d) 45,46 . For our measurement setup and the presented stimuli, the critical distance is approximately 1.9 m. The directivity index was chosen with a value of Q = 3 corresponding to the spectral power density of human speech or babble noise 47 and the directivity index diagram shown in the Control 1 Pro (JBL) loudspeaker data sheet.…”

A Front-Back Confusion Metric in Horizontal Sound Localization: The FBC Score

“…FBC errors are not simply outliers with extreme error amplitudes. The underlying cause is different from normal localization errors (see Figure 1) which is why FBCs should be analyzed separately [Carlile et al 1997;Fischer et al 2020a;Hill et al 2000;Langendijk et al 2001;Pastore et al 2018;Wightman and Kistler 1999].…”

“…The order of the stimuli with respect to the loudspeaker was randomized [Wimmer et al 2017]. The loudspeakers were hidden behind a sound transparent curtain, no prior knowledge about possible stimuli directions was provided to the subjects [Fischer et al 2020a]. The subjects' feedback on the perceived location of the stimulus was recorded via a graphical user interface showing a dial with a resolution scale of 1-degree angle and a login button.…”