title: An energetic limit on spatial release from masking.
abstract: This study tested the hypothesis that energetic masking limits the benefits obtained from spatial separation in multiple-talker listening situations, particularly for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. A speech target was presented simultaneously with two or four speech maskers. The target was always presented diotically, and the maskers were either presented diotically or dichotically. In dichotic configurations, the maskers were symmetrically placed by introducing interaural time differences (ITDs) or infinitely large interaural level differences (ILDs; monaural presentation). Target-to-masker ratios for 50 % correct were estimated. Thresholds in all separated conditions were poorer in listeners with hearing loss than listeners with normal hearing. Moreover, for a given listener, thresholds were similar for conditions with the same number of talkers per ear (e.g., ILD with four talkers equivalent to ITD with two talkers) and hence the same energetic masking. The results are consistent with the idea that increased energetic masking, rather than a specific spatial deficit, may limit performance for hearing-impaired listeners in spatialized speech mixtures.
authors: Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences and Hearing Research Center, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Virginia.Best@nal.gov.au
authors: Virginia
authors: V
authors: Best
authors: Eric R
authors: ER
authors: Thompson
authors: Christine R
authors: CR
authors: Mason
authors: Gerald
authors: G
authors: Kidd
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001307:Auditory Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D001309:Auditory Threshold / Q000502:physiology*; D006309:Hearing / Q000502:physiology*; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology*; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D013997:Time Factors; D055815:Young Adult
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Jun;133(6):3677-80
references: 23742322
references: Ear Hear. 2012 May-Jun;33(3):340-8
references: 22237164
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Nov;124(5):3064-75
references: 19045792
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Jun;125(6):4006-22
references: 19507982
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Aug;116(2):1057-65
references: 15376672
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Oct;126(4):1926-40
references: 19813805
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Apr;131(4):3103-10
references: 22501083
references: Ear Hear. 1990 Feb;11(1):40-9
references: 2307302
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Feb;121(2):1040-6
references: 17348526
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1967 Oct;42(4):820-9
references: 6075567
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Oct;102(4):2343-52
references: 9348693
references: Trends Amplif. 2011 Sep;15(3):116-26
references: 22072599
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Oct;120(4):2295-311
references: 17069325
references: Ear Hear. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):15-28
references: 22941406
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Oct;88(4):1725-36
references: 2262629
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Mar;109(3):1101-9
references: 11303924
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Feb;107(2):1065-6
references: 10687719
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Dec;120(6):4007-18
references: 17225427
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Nov;110(5 Pt 1):2527-38
references: 11757942
references: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Apr;51(2):539-56
references: 18367695
references: Ear Hear. 2008 Jan;29(1):87-98
references: 18091104