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

References

• Arlinger S., Billermark E., Oberg M., Lunner T. & Hellgren J. 1998. Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol, 27, 51–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athalye S.P. 2010. Factors affecting speech recognition in noise and hearing loss in adults with a wide variety of auditory capabilities. PhD thesis, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Brand T. & Hohmann H. 2002. An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1597–1604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2002. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2801–2810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durbin J. & Watson G.S. 1971. Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. III. Biometrika, 58, 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamme G.A. 2001. Examination of the validity of auditory traits and tests. Trends Amplif, 5, 111–138.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S. 1991. The role of non-auditory factors in measured and self-reported disability. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 249–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. & Akeroyd M. 2006. Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. Int J Audiol, 45, S120–S124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goverts S.T. & Houtgast T. 2010. The binaural intelligibility level difference in hearing-impaired listeners: The role of supra-threshold deficits. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 3073–3084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grantham D.W., Hornsby B.W. & Erpenbeck E.A. 2003. Auditory spatial resolution in horizontal, vertical, and diagonal planes. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1009–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafter E.R., Saberi K., Jensen E.R. & Briolle F. 1992. Localization in an echoic environment. Adv Biosci, 83, 555–561.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausler R., Colburn S. & Marr E. 1983. Sound localization in subjects with impaired hearing. Spatial-discrimination and interaural-discrimination tests. Acta Otolaryngol, Suppl. 400, 1–62.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson M.S. & Arlinger S.D. 2002. Binaural masking level difference for speech signals in noise. Int J Audiol, 41, 279–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopman J., Houben R., Dreschler W. & Verschuure J. 2006. Development of a speech in noise test (Matrix). 8th EFAS Congress; 10th DGA Congress; 6–9 June 2006, Heidelberg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer S.E., Kapteyn T.S., Festen J.M. & Tobi H. 1996. The relationships between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. Audiology 35, 277–287.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kramer S.E., Kapteyn T.S. & Festen J.M. 1998. The self-reported handicapping effect of hearing disabilities. Audiology, 37, 302–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lutman M.E. 1991. Hearing disability in the elderly. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 239–248.
   Google Scholar
• Lutman M.E., Brown E.J. & Coles R.R.A. 1987. Self-reported disability and handicap in the population in relation to pure-tone threshold, age, sex, and type of hearing loss. Brit J Audiol, 21, 45–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Middlebrooks J.C. 1999a. Individual differences in external-ear transfer functions reduced by scaling in frequency. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1480–1492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middlebrooks J.C. 1999b. Virtual localization improved by scaling non- individualized external-ear transfer functions in frequency. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1493–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills A.W. 1958. On the minimum audible angle. J Acoust Soc Am, 30, 237–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W., Ter-Horst K. & Byrne D. 1995. Disabilities and handicaps associated with impaired auditory localization. J Am Acad Audiol, 6, 129–140.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Noble W. & Gatehouse S. 2004. Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap. Int J Audiol, 43, 100–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringdahl A., Eriksson-Mangold M. & Andersson G. 1998. Psychometric evaluation of the Gothenburg Profile for measurement of experienced hearing disability and handicap: applications with new hearing-aid candidates and experienced hearing-aid users. Br J Audiol, 32, 375–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silzle A. 2007. Generation of quality taxonomies for auditory virtual environments by means of systematic expert survey. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Tervaniemi M. & Hugdahl K. 2003. Lateralization of auditory-cortex functions. Brain Res Rev, 43, 231–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler R.S., Perreau A.E. & Ji H. 2009. Validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire. Ear Hear, 30, 466–474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Esch T.E., Kollmeier B., Vormann M., Lyzenga J., Houtgast T. et al. 2013. Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study. Int J Audiol, 52, 305–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villchur E. 1974. Simulation of the effect of recruitment on loudness relationships in speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 56, 1601–1611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test part I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol, 38, 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol, 38, 44–56.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test part III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006. International cross-validation of sentence intelligibility tests. 8th EFAS Congress; 10th DGA Congress, 6–9 June 2006, Heidelberg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Hopkins J.L., Mance C.M. & Novak R.E. 1982. Detection and recognition masking-level differences for the individual CID W-1 spondaic words. J Speech Hear Res, 25, 235–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar