PURPOSE: This study assessed selective listening for speech in individuals with and without unilateral hearing loss (UHL) and the potential relationship between spatial release from informational masking and localization ability in listeners with UHL. METHOD: Twelve adults with UHL and 12 normal-hearing controls completed a series of monaural and binaural speech tasks that were designed to measure informational masking. They also completed a horizontal localization task. RESULTS: Monaural performance by participants with UHL was comparable to that of normal-hearing participants. Unlike the normal-hearing participants, the participants with UHL did not exhibit a true spatial release from informational masking. Rather, their performance could be predicted by head shadow effects. Performance among participants with UHL in the localization task was quite variable, with some showing near-normal abilities and others demonstrating no localization ability. CONCLUSION: Individuals with UHL did not show deficits in all listening situations but were at a significant disadvantage when listening to speech in environments where normal-hearing listeners benefit from spatial separation between target and masker. This inability to capitalize on spatial cues for selective listening does not appear to be related to localization ability.
PURPOSE: This study assessed selective listening for speech in individuals with and without unilateral hearing loss (UHL) and the potential relationship between spatial release from informational masking and localization ability in listeners with UHL. METHOD: Twelve adults with UHL and 12 normal-hearing controls completed a series of monaural and binaural speech tasks that were designed to measure informational masking. They also completed a horizontal localization task. RESULTS: Monaural performance by participants with UHL was comparable to that of normal-hearing participants. Unlike the normal-hearing participants, the participants with UHL did not exhibit a true spatial release from informational masking. Rather, their performance could be predicted by head shadow effects. Performance among participants with UHL in the localization task was quite variable, with some showing near-normal abilities and others demonstrating no localization ability. CONCLUSION: Individuals with UHL did not show deficits in all listening situations but were at a significant disadvantage when listening to speech in environments where normal-hearing listeners benefit from spatial separation between target and masker. This inability to capitalize on spatial cues for selective listening does not appear to be related to localization ability.
Authors: Martijn J H Agterberg; Ad F M Snik; Myrthe K S Hol; Thamar E M van Esch; Cor W R J Cremers; Marc M Van Wanrooij; A John Van Opstal Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2010-09-14
Authors: Frederick J Gallun; Nathaniel I Durlach; H Steven Colburn; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Virginia Best; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Violet A Brown; Naseem H Dillman-Hasso; ZhaoBin Li; Lucia Ray; Ellen Mamantov; Kristin J Van Engen; Julia F Strand Journal: Atten Percept Psychophys Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Erin M Lopez; Margaret T Dillon; Lisa R Park; Meredith A Rooth; Margaret E Richter; Nicholas J Thompson; Brendan P O'Connell; Harold C Pillsbury; Kevin D Brown Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 2.619