Failure to unlearn the precedence effect.

Studies of the precedence effect using two binaural clicks have shown that listeners' ability to discriminate changes in the interaural time difference (ITD) of the lagging click is much poorer than that for the leading click [e.g., Zurek, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 952-964 (1980)]. This difference is thought to reflect an auditory process that suppresses directional information from the lagging sound and attributes greater perceptual weight to directional information contained in the leading one. A report by Saberi and Perrott [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 1732-1737 (1990)] suggested that listeners can "unlearn" this suppression of the lag's directional information after training with an adaptive psychophysical procedure involving 100 reversals and extremely small step sizes. Here, an attempt was made to find a similar effect using psychophysical procedures that are more common to precedence studies. Eight subjects were rigorously trained on the precedence task using either a blocked procedure or an adaptive procedure to vary ITD. Listeners showed no sign of unlearning. After 9-31 h of participating in the task, all subjects maintained high lag just-noticeable differences (jnd's) and low single source jnd's. This failure to train away the precedence effect (as manifested in discrimination suppression) suggests that directional information contained in the lagging source is not easily accessed. Several possible explanations for the discrepancies between the present study and Saberi and Perrott's finding are discussed.

Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment.

Natural environments typically contain sound sources other than the source of interest that may interfere with the ability of listeners to extract information about the primary source. Studies of speech intelligibility and localization by normal-hearing listeners in the presence of competing speech are reported on in this work. One, two or three competing sentences [IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17(3), 225-246 (1969)] were presented from various locations in the horizontal plane in several spatial configurations relative to a target sentence. Target and competing sentences were spoken by the same male talker and at the same level. All experiments were conducted both in an actual sound field and in a virtual sound field. In the virtual sound field, both binaural and monaural conditions were tested. In the speech intelligibility experiment, there were significant improvements in performance when the target and competing sentences were spatially separated. Performance was similar in the actual sound-field and virtual sound-field binaural listening conditions for speech intelligibility. Although most of these improvements are evident monaurally when using the better ear, binaural listening was necessary for large improvements in some situations. In the localization experiment, target source identification was measured in a seven-alternative absolute identification paradigm with the same competing sentence configurations as for the speech study. Performance in the localization experiment was significantly better in the actual sound-field than in the virtual sound-field binaural listening conditions. Under binaural conditions, localization performance was very good, even in the presence of three competing sentences. Under monaural conditions, performance was much worse. For the localization experiment, there was no significant effect of the number or configuration of the competing sentences tested. For these experiments, the performance in the speech intelligibility experiment was not limited by localization ability.

Effects of reference interaural time and intensity differences on binaural performance in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to measure the effects of reference interaural time and intensity differences on binaural performance in listeners with normal hearing and impaired hearing for a number of different binaural tests. Experiment 1 measures the dependence of binaural detection and discrimination performance on reference interaural intensity differences (IID) in the range of +/- 12 dB for listeners with normal hearing. Experiment 2 extends these measures to include reference IIDs and interaural time differences (ITD) for two groups of listeners with normal hearing with offsets in the range of +/- 12 dB and +/- 300 microseconds (group 1) and +/-24 dB and +/- 600 microseconds (group 2). Experiment 3 includes the same tests and conditions as experiment 2 for listeners with various hearing impairments. DESIGN: A set of psychophysical measurements was completed on 11 listeners with sensorineural hearing losses and 9 listeners with clinically normal hearing. The primary measurements were a set of four binaural detection and interaural discrimination thresholds measured for two 1/3-octave bands of Gaussian noise, one centered at 500 Hz and the other at 4000 Hz. Specifically, we measured binaural (antiphasic) detection thresholds for tones centered in the masking noise as well as the just-noticeable differences (JNDs) in IID, ITD, and interaural cross-correlation (ICC) for each of the noise-band stimuli. All measurements were done for a number of combinations of reference IID and ITD. In addition to these primary measurements, several other measurements were made on each subject, including monaural absolute thresholds, monaural intensity discrimination, monaural masked thresholds, and intensity levels required for interaurally balanced loudness and for a centered image. All measurements were made using a relatively quick, adaptive procedure. RESULTS: For the subjects with normal hearing, measured dependencies of the IID and ITD JNDs using noise stimuli on reference ITD and IID are different from those previously reported for tonal stimuli. Binaural performance of the listeners with impaired hearing varies widely across subjects and tests and is generally poorer than that of listeners with normal hearing. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results for subjects with hearing impairments, we have reached several conclusions. First, the results for the binaural measurements cannot be explained in terms of available monaural audiometric and psychophysical measurements on these subjects. Second, the subjects' binaural abilities show no significant improvement with any combinations in the reference values of ITD and IID, providing negative evidence for the hypothesis that degraded performance for some subjects may be due to internal interaural offsets in ITD or IID. Third, the hypothesis that binaural detection and ICC discrimination are related, suggested by Durlach et al (1986), is generally supported. Fourth, binaural detection performance is not simply explained in terms of sensitivities to ITD and IID.