scholarly journals Front‐Back Discrimination in Free‐Field Sound Localization

1969 ◽  
Vol 46 (1A) ◽  
pp. 125-125
Author(s):  
F. E. Toole
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Field Sound

Simulation of free-field sound sources and its application to studies of cortical mechanisms of sound localization in the cat

1994 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Brugge ◽  
Richard A. Reale ◽  
Joseph E. Hind ◽  
Joseph C.K. Chan ◽  
Alan D. Musicant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Sound Sources ◽  
Field Sound

Free-field sound radiation measurement with multiple synchronous cameras

Measurement ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 110605
Author(s):  
Paolo Gardonio ◽  
Roberto Rinaldo ◽  
Loris Dal Bo ◽  
Roberto Del Sal ◽  
Emanuele Turco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Free Field ◽  
Sound Radiation ◽  
Radiation Measurement ◽  
Field Sound

scholarly journals Sound Localization Test in Presence of Noise (Sound Localization Test) in Adults without Hearing Alteration

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. e276-e280
Author(s):  
Gleide Viviani Maciel Almeida ◽  
Angela Ribas ◽  
Jorge Calleros
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Test Environment ◽  
Noise Interference ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right

Introduction Even people with normal hearing may have difficulties locating a sound source in unfavorable sound environments where competitive noise is intense. Objective To develop, describe, validate and establish the normality curve of the sound localization test. Method The sample consisted of 100 healthy subjects with normal hearing, > 18 years old, who agreed to participate in the study. The sound localization test was applied after the subjects underwent a tonal audiometry exam. For this purpose, a calibrated free field test environment was set up. Then, 30 random pure tones were presented in 2 speakers placed at 45° (on the right and on the left sides of the subject), and the noise was presented from a 3rd speaker, placed at 180°. The noise was presented in 3 hearing situations: optimal listening condition (no noise), noise in relation to 0 dB, and noise in relation to - 10 dB. The subject was asked to point out the side where the pure tone was being perceived, even in the presence of noise. Results All of the 100 participants performed the test in an average time of 99 seconds. The average score was 21, the medium score was 23, and the standard deviation was 3.05. Conclusion The sound localization test proved to be easy to set-up and to apply. The results obtained in the validation of the test suggest that individuals with normal hearing should locate 70% of the presented stimuli. The test can constitute an important instrument in the measurement of noise interference in the ability to locate the sound.

A comparison of free-field and headphone based sound localization tasks

2018 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
pp. 1814-1814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devon Brichetto ◽  
Brock Carlson ◽  
Mary Landis Gaston ◽  
Thomas Olson ◽  
Jeremy Loebach
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Free Field

scholarly journals Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners’ Ability to Perceive Minimal Audible Angle Differences

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (08) ◽  
pp. 659-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Zaleski-King ◽  
Matthew J. Goupell ◽  
Dragana Barac-Cikoja ◽  
Matthew Bakke
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Spatial Location ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
The Right

AbstractBilateral inputs should ideally improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise. However, for many bimodal listeners [i.e., individuals using a cochlear implant (CI) with a contralateral hearing aid (HA)], such bilateral benefits are at best, inconsistent. The degree to which clinically available HA and CI devices can function together to preserve interaural time and level differences (ITDs and ILDs, respectively) enough to support the localization of sound sources is a question with important ramifications for speech understanding in complex acoustic environments.To determine if bimodal listeners are sensitive to changes in spatial location in a minimum audible angle (MAA) task.Repeated-measures design.Seven adult bimodal CI users (28–62 years). All listeners reported regular use of digital HA technology in the nonimplanted ear.Seven bimodal listeners were asked to balance the loudness of prerecorded single syllable utterances. The loudness-balanced stimuli were then presented via direct audio inputs of the two devices with an ITD applied. The task of the listener was to determine the perceived difference in processing delay (the interdevice delay [IDD]) between the CI and HA devices. Finally, virtual free-field MAA performance was measured for different spatial locations both with and without inclusion of the IDD correction, which was added with the intent to perceptually synchronize the devices.During the loudness-balancing task, all listeners required increased acoustic input to the HA relative to the CI most comfortable level to achieve equal interaural loudness. During the ITD task, three listeners could perceive changes in intracranial position by distinguishing sounds coming from the left or from the right hemifield; when the CI was delayed by 0.73, 0.67, or 1.7 msec, the signal lateralized from one side to the other. When MAA localization performance was assessed, only three of the seven listeners consistently achieved above-chance performance, even when an IDD correction was included. It is not clear whether the listeners who were able to consistently complete the MAA task did so via binaural comparison or by extracting monaural loudness cues. Four listeners could not perform the MAA task, even though they could have used a monaural loudness cue strategy.These data suggest that sound localization is extremely difficult for most bimodal listeners. This difficulty does not seem to be caused by large loudness imbalances and IDDs. Sound localization is best when performed via a binaural comparison, where frequency-matched inputs convey ITD and ILD information. Although low-frequency acoustic amplification with a HA when combined with a CI may produce an overlapping region of frequency-matched inputs and thus provide an opportunity for binaural comparisons for some bimodal listeners, our study showed that this may not be beneficial or useful for spatial location discrimination tasks. The inability of our listeners to use monaural-level cues to perform the MAA task highlights the difficulty of using a HA and CI together to glean information on the direction of a sound source.

Sound Localization in Free Field and Interaural Threshold Differences

1964 ◽  
Vol 57 (sup188) ◽  
pp. 293-297
Author(s):  
Thorleif Sohoel ◽  
Gunnar Arnesen ◽  
Kjell Gjavenes
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Free Field
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document