Optimisation of an auditory azimuth localisation training protocol for military service members

Figures & data

Figure 1. DRILCOM testing facility and participant interface demonstrating the 12 response location options and system-generated feedback for an incorrect response. Adapted from Casali and Lee (2019), Figure 1, pS67 and Figure 3, pS69.

Table 1. Subunit composition for each training condition in the main experiment.

Subunit order	Training Condition (number of presentations)
	DRILCOM	Adaptive	Choose	Adaptive + Choose
1	Sequential	Sequential	Sequential	Sequential
2	Random (4, each speaker location)	Random (2, each speaker location)	Random (3, each speaker location)	Random (2, each speaker location)
3	Test (3, each speaker location)	Adaptive (4 for each incorrect response location from previous session)	User-selected practice (18 total presentations from location of participant’s choice)	Adaptive (2 for each incorrect response location from previous session)
4		Test (3, each speaker location)	Test (3, each speaker location)	User-selected practice (12 total presentations from location of participant’s choice)
5				Test (3, each speaker location)

The sequential subunit was comprised of four presentations from each location for LU1 and only one from each location for LUs 2–8.

Figure 2. Spectral content of the dissonant training signal and untrained stimuli as used in both pilot experiments and main experiment (explanations in text).

Figure 3. Mean score for each presentation condition at each training stage for Pilot Experiment 1 and Pilot Experiment 2.

Figure 4. Mean raw scores and response times across Learning Units for each training condition.

Casali, J. G., and K. Lee. 2019. “Learning to Localize a Broadband Tonal Complex Signal with Advanced Hearing Protectors and TCAPS: The Effectiveness of Training on Open-Ear vs. device-Occluded Performance.” International Journal of Audiology 58 (Suppl 1): S65–S73. doi:10.1080/14992027.2018.1532118.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar