Literature DB >> 31582332

Azimuthal sound source localization of various sound stimuli under different conditions.

M Risoud1, J-N Hanson2, F Gauvrit2, C Renard2, N-X Bonne3, C Vincent4.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate azimuthal sound-source localization performance under different conditions, with a view to optimizing a routine sound localization protocol. MATERIAL AND
METHOD: Two groups of healthy, normal-hearing subjects were tested identically, except that one had to keep their head still while the other was allowed to turn it. Sound localization was tested without and then with a right ear plug (acute auditory asymmetry) for each of the following sound stimuli: pulsed narrow-band centered on 250Hz, continuous narrowband centered on 2000Hz, 4000Hz and 8000Hz, continuous 4000Hz warble, pulsed white noise, and word ("lac" (lake)). Root mean square error was used to calculate sound-source localization accuracy.
RESULTS: With fixed head, localization was significantly disturbed by the earplug for all stimuli (P<0.05). The most discriminating stimulus was continuous 4000Hz narrow-band: area under the ROC curve (AUC), 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.01] for screening and 0.85 [0.82-0.89] for diagnosis. With mobile head, localization was significantly better than with fixed head for 4000 and 8000Hz stimuli (P<0.05). The most discriminating stimulus was continuous 2000Hz narrow-band: AUC, 0.90 [0.83-0.97] for screening and 0.75 [0.71-0.79] for diagnosis. In both conditions, pulsed noise (250Hz narrow-band, white noise or word) was less difficult to localize than continuous noise.
CONCLUSION: The test was more sensitive with the head immobile. Continuous narrow-band stimulation centered on 4000Hz most effectively explored interaural level difference. Pulsed narrow-band stimulation centered on 250Hz most effectively explored interaural time difference. Testing with mobile head, closer to real-life conditions, was most effective with continuous narrow-band stimulation centered on 2000Hz.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Interaural level difference; Interaural time difference; Sound-source localization; Unilateral hearing loss

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31582332     DOI: 10.1016/j.anorl.2019.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis        ISSN: 1879-7296            Impact factor:   2.080


  3 in total

1.  Sensitivity to interaural time differences and localization accuracy in cochlear implant users with combined electric-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Monika Körtje; Uwe Baumann; Timo Stöver; Tobias Weissgerber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Binaural Modelling and Spatial Auditory Cue Analysis of 3D-Printed Ears.

Authors:  Te Meng Ting; Nur Syazreen Ahmad; Patrick Goh; Junita Mohamad-Saleh
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 3.576

3.  Instant improvement in monaural spatial hearing abilities through cognitive feedback.

Authors:  Tine Arras; Hillary Snapp; Anouk Sangen; Chantal Snels; Iris Kuntz; Tinne Theunen; Kiana Kheirkhah; Andrzej Zarowski; Thomas Wesarg; Astrid van Wieringen; Martijn J H Agterberg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 2.064

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.