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.

Pinna-Imitating Microphone Directionality Improves Sound Localization and Discrimination in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

“…In OMNI mode, a smaller nonsignificant difference was observed (67 ± 21° angle in the back versus 63 ± 20° angle in the front; p = 0.60). For comparison, NH subjects showed a better tracking performance in the front (16 ± 4° angle) compared to the back (21 ± 6° angle, p = 0.005), similar to that in PI mode (Fischer et al 2020). See Tables 13 and 14, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/EANDH/ A679, for additional data of the hemifield and movement direction-related analyses.…”

“…If desired by the subjects, short breaks were taken at any time. The test procedures are described in more detail in the article by Fischer et al (2020). Static Sound-Source Localization • We tested the absolute sound localization performance using 12 equally spaced loudspeakers covering the whole azimuthal plane.…”

“…Static Sound-Source Localization • We tested the absolute sound localization performance using 12 equally spaced loudspeakers covering the whole azimuthal plane. Three pink noise stimuli with a duration of 200 ms, a 10 ms rise/decay time and a level of 65 dB SPL (roving ±5 dB) were presented from the loudspeakers in a randomized order (Wimmer et al 2017;Fischer et al 2020), resulting in a total of 36 stimuli. The subjects had no prior knowledge about the positions of the loudspeakers, and no feedback was given about the correctness of their answers.…”

“…Before the test, the subjects could familiarize themselves with the test procedure. The test procedures are described in more detail in the article by Fischer et al (2020). Minimum Audible Angle • To investigate the subjects' discrimination abilities, the MAA was measured (Mills 1958) at 8 positions, covering the azimuthal plane in 45° angle intervals.…”

“…The first MAA sequence was tested in the frontal direction (0° angle). The test procedures are described in more detail in the article by Fischer et al (2020). Sound-Source Tracking • For sound-source tracking, a continuous pink noise stimulus with a 65-dB sound pressure level was presented from a loudspeaker that was moved with a wireless robotic setup (Fischer et al 2020).…”