Relations between psychophysical measures of spatial hearing and self-reported spatial-hearing abilities

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate how well the virtual psychophysical measures of spatial hearing from the preliminary auditory profile predict self-reported spatial-hearing abilities. Design: Virtual spatial-hearings tests (conducted unaided, via headphones) and a questionnaire were administered in five centres in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Correlations and stepwise linear regression models were calculated among a group of hearing-impaired listeners. Study sample: Thirty normal-hearing listeners aged 19–39 years, and 72 hearing-impaired listeners aged 22–91 years with a broad range of hearing losses, including asymmetrical and mixed hearing losses. Results: Several significant correlations (between 0.24 and 0.54) were found between results of virtual psychophysical spatial-hearing tests and self-reported localization abilities. Stepwise linear regression analyses showed that the minimum audible angle (MAA) test was a significant predictor for self-reported localization abilities (5% extra explained variance), and the spatial speech reception threshold (SRT) benefit test for self-reported listening to speech in spatial situations (6% extra explained variance). Conclusions: The MAA test and spatial SRT benefit test are indicative measures of everyday binaural functioning. The binaural SRT benefit test was not found to predict self-reported spatial-hearing abilities.

Key Words::

• Spatial hearing
• hearing impaired
• clinical tests
• multi-centre study
• audiological diagnosis
• auditory profile

Acknowledgements

Data from the present study have been published before by Van Esch et al (2013). Materials of several of the tests from the preliminary auditory profile are available from the HearCom website (www.hearcom.eu): Matrix sentence frameworks in the four languages, and the Gothenburg profile questionnaire in the four languages. We thank Daniel Berg for technical support and implementation of the tests on the platform (OMA), and Kirsten Wagener for her work on consolidation of the speech tests. Finally we thank the test subjects for their participation. The study was supported by grants from the European Union FP6, Project 0004171 HEARCOM. The information in this document is provided as is, and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at his/her sole risk and liability. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. Parts of this work have been presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference, August 16, 2008, Lake Tahoe, California: Evaluation of the ‘Auditory Profile’ test battery in an international multi-centre study.

Notes

1. NL-AMC: no. 05/127 # 05.17.0934, dated August 3, 2005; HZO-DE: “Klinische Tests zur Bestimmung individueller Hördefizite und Kommuniationsfähigkeiten”, dated November 15, 2006; ISVR-UK: 791, dated February 13, 2007; SE-LINK: M83-06; VUMC-NL: MEC05/12 - 2006/171, dated November 2, 2006.

2. Spearman's rank correlations (which are less sensitive to outliers) were calculated to investigate whether the significant correlation for noise-left measurements were influenced by outliers. We found that Spearman's correlations between GP and BILD were very similar to, and of the same significance as, Pearson's rank correlations: 0,314 (p < 0.01), 0,284 (p < 0.05) and 0,419 (p < 0.01) for the localization subscale and questions #6 and #7 respectively. This indicates that the influence of outliers on the correlation values was negligible. Also for the other variables (PTA, MAA, and spatial SRT benefit) Pearson's correlations and Spearman's rank correlations were nearly identical (data not shown).

3. Van Esch et al (2013) found that the low-pass noise condition of the MAA test was too hard for a considerable number of listeners. Additionally, they reported a significant learning effect for the MAA test.

4. Van Esch et al (2013) found in the same data set that listeners perceived significantly more binaural benefit with noise from the left side (after correction for their ear-specific hearing thresholds), which agrees with the generally known right-ear advantage for speech perception (see Tervaniemi & Hugdahl, 2003, for a review). The present analyses suggest that the binaural benefit with noise from the left side was also more closely related to subjective binaural functioning. If both findings can be replicated in other studies, it implies that the right-ear advantage is related to everyday binaural functioning.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material available online

Supplementary Appendix Figures 1–4.