Benefit from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, age, and cognition

References

• Akeroyd M.A.. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol. 2008; 47(Suppl. 2):S53–S73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alais D., Morrone C., Burr D.. Separate attentional resources for vision and audition. Proc R Soc B. 2006; 273:1339–1345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI S3.5. Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. American National Standard. 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R., Kidd G. Jr, . The effect of spatial separation on informational of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117:2169–2180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A., Logie R., Nimmo-Smith L. Components of fluent reading. J Mem Lang. 1985; 24:119–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behrens T., Neher T., Johannesson R.B.. Evaluation of speech corpus for assessment of spatial release from maskingAuditory Signal Processing in Hearing-Impaired ListenersDau T, . Centertryk A/SCopenhagenDenmark2008; :449–457.
   Google Scholar
• Blauert J. Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. The MIT PressCambridgeMA1983.
   Google Scholar
• Bolia R.S., Ericson M.A., Simpson B.D.. A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107:1065–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W.. The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acust Acust. 2000; 86:117–128.
   Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S., Simpson B.D., Ericson M.A., Scott K.R.. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 110:2527–2538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buus S., Scharf B., Florentine M.. Lateralization and frequency selectivity in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984; 76:77–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buus S., Florentine M.. Growth of loudness in listeners with cochlear hearing losses: Recruitment reconsidered. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2001; 3:120–139.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K., . An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96:2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Noble W., Ter-Horst K. Effects of hearing aids on localization of sounds by people with sensorineural and conductive/mixed hearing losses. Aust J Audiol. 1995; 17:79–86.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Noble W., Glauerdt B.. Effects of earmold type on ability to locate sounds when wearing hearing aids. Ear Hear. 1996; 17:218–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Noble W.. Optimizing sound localization with hearing aids. Trends Amplif. 1998; 2:51–73.
   Google Scholar
• Carlile S., Pralong D.. The location-dependent nature of perceptually salient features of the human head-related transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 95:3445–3459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman M., Carpenter P.A.. Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1980; 9:561–584.
   Google Scholar
• Darwin C.J., Hukin R.W.. Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107:970–977.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. Hearing Aids. Boomerang PressSydney2001.
   Google Scholar
• Driver J, Spence C. Crossmodal spatial attention: Evidence from human performanceCrossmodal Space and Crossmodal AttentionSpence C, Driver J. Oxford University PresOxfordUK2004; :179–220.
   Google Scholar
• Ebata M.. Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem. Acoust Sci & Tech. 2003; 24:208–219.
   Google Scholar
• Festen J.M., Plomp R.. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 79:465–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman R.L., Helfer K.S., McCall D.D., Clifton R.K.. The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106:3578–3588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman R.L., Helfer K.S., Balakrishnan U.. Spatial and spectral factors in release from informational masking in speech recognition. Acta Acust Acust. 2005; 91:537–545.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Akeroyd M.A., Deas R., Glover C., Howell P., . A large scale study of the drivers of auditory disability in adults aged 50–80 years: 1. Attentional Capacities. Int J Audiol. 2006; 46:624.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Akeroyd M.A.. The effects of cueing temporal and spatial attention on word recognition in a complex listening task in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Amplif. 2008; 12:145–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gelfand S.A., Ross L., Miller S.. Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: Effects of aging and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988; 83:248–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grose J.H., Poth E.A., Peters R.W.. Masking level differences for tones and speech in elderly listeners with relatively normal audiograms. J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37:422–428.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grose J.H., Hall J.W.. Perceptual organization of sequential stimuli in listeners with cochlear hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 1996; 39:1149–1158.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hair J.F. Jr, Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L.. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Prentice HallNew JerseyUpper Saddle River2006.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins D.B., Wightman F.L.. Interaural time discrimination ability of listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology. 1980; 19:495–507.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Helfer K.S., Freyman R.L.. Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear. 2008; 29:87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B., Arlinger S.. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing-impaired persons. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12:357–370.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ihlefeld A., Shinn-Cunningham B.. Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a selective speech identification task. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 123:4369–4379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Rohrseitz K., Dillon H., Hamacher V., Carter L., . The effect of multichannel wide dynamic range compression, noise reduction, and the directional microphone on horizontal localization performance in hearing aid wearers. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45:563–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd G. Jr, Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R., Walsh M.. Informational masking in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2002; 3:107–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kidd G. Jr, Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R., Gallun F.J.. The advantage of knowing where to listen. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 118:3804–3815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd G. Jr, Mason C.R., Brughera A., Hartmann W.H.. The role of reverberation in release from masking due to spatial separation of sources for speech identification. Acta Acust Acust. 2005; 91:526–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacher-Fougère S., Demany L.. Consequences of cochlear damage for the detection of interaural phase differences. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 11:2519–2526.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzi C., Gatehouse S., Lever C.. Sound localization in noise in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 105:3454–3463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T.. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42:S49–S58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T., Sundewall-Thorén E.. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007; 18:604–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marrone N.L., Mason C.R, Kidd G. Jr, . Evaluating the benefit of hearing aids in solving the cocktail party problem. Trends Amplif. 2008a; 12:300–315.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marrone N.L., Mason C.R., Kidd G. Jr, . The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008b; 124:3064–3075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrgardt S., Mellert V.. Transformation characteristics of the external human ear. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977; 61:1567–1576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J.. Cochlear Hearing Loss. Whurr Publishers LtdLondon1998.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C., Glasberg B.R., Puria S.. Spectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies, and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2008; 29:907–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neher T., Behrens T., Kragelund L., Petersen A.S.. Spatial unmasking in aided hearing-impaired listeners and the need for trainingAuditory Signal Processing in Hearing-impaired ListenersDau T, . Centertryk A/SCopenhagenDenmark2008; :515–522.
   Google Scholar
• Noble W., Byrne D., Lepage B.. Effects on sound localization of configuration and type of hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 95:992–1005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W., Byrne D., Ter-Host K.. Auditory localization, detection of spatial separateness, and speech hearing in noise by hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 102:2343–2352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W., Sinclair S., Byrne D.. Extra-open earmoulds, localization, and speech hearing in spatially separated noise. Aust J Audiol. 1997; 19:99–107.
   Google Scholar
• Noble W., Sinclair S., Byrne D.. Improvement in aided sound localization with open earmolds: Observations in people with high-frequency hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998; 9:25–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Noble W., Gatehouse S.. Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol. 2006; 45:172–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A.. Masking-level differences in the elderly: A comparison of antiphasic and time-delay dichotic conditions. J Speech Hear Res. 1991; 34:1410–1422.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K.. Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42(Suppl. 2):S26–S32.
   Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K.. Perceptual effort and apparent cognitive decline: Implications for audiologic rehabilitation. Sem Hear. 2006; 27:284–293.
   Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., Singh G.. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: Implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif. 2006; 10:29–59.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K.. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. Int J Audiol. 2008; 47(Suppl. 2):S72–S82.
   Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., MacDonald E.. Auditory temporal processing deficits in older listeners: From a review to a future view of presbycusisAuditory Signal Processing in Hearing-Impaired ListenersDau T, . Centertryk A/SCopenhagenDenmark2008; :291–300.
   Google Scholar
• Rakerd B., Vander Velde T.J., Hartmann W.M.. Sound localization in the median sagittal plane by listeners with presbyacusis. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998; 9:466–479.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reisberg D. Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind. W.W. Norton & Company, IncNew York2007; :–.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson I.H., Ward T., Ridgeway V., Nimmo-Smith I.. The Test of Everyday Attention Manual. MRC Applied Psychology Unit Cambridge. Harcourt AssessmentLondon1994.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson I.H., Ward T., Ridgeway V., Nimmo-Smith I.. The structure of normal human attention: The test of everyday attention. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1996; 2:525–534.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salthouse T.. Adult Cognition. Springer VerlagNew York1982.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider B.A., Li. L., Daneman M.. How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007; 18:559–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham B.G., Best V.. Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing. Trends Amplif. 2008; 12:283–299.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tun P.A., O'Kane G., Wingfield A.. Distraction by competing speech in young and older listeners. Psychology and Aging. 2002; 17:453–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bogaert T., Klasen T.J., Moonen M., Van Deun L., Wouters J.. Horizontal localization with bilateral hearing aids: Without is better than with. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119:515–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Josvassen J.L., Ardenkjær R.. Design, evaluation and optimization of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42:10–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wightman F.L., Kistler D.J.. The dominant role of low-frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992; 91:1648–1661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wightman F.L., Kistler D.J.. actors affecting the relative salience of sound localization cuesBinaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual EnvironmentsGilkey R.H., Anderson T.A. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwahNJ1997; :1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Yost W.A.. The cocktail party problem: Forty years laterBinaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual EnvironmentsGilkey G.H., Anderson T.A.. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwahNJ1997; :329–347.
   Google Scholar
• Zurek P.M.. Binaural advantages and directional effects in speech intelligibilityAcoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid PerformanceStudebaker G.A., Hockberg I. Allyn and BaconNeedham HeightsMA1993; :255–276.
   Google Scholar