Binaural loudness summation for speech presented via earphones and loudspeaker with and without visual cues

Loudness constancy for noise and speech: How instructions and source information affect loudness of distant sounds

The physical properties of a sound evolve when traveling away from its source. As an example, the sound pressure level at the listener's ears will vary according to their respective distance and azimuth. However, several studies have reported loudness to remain constant when varying the distance between the source and the listener. This loudness constancy has been reported to occur when the listener focused attention on the sound as emitted by the source (namely the distal stimulus). Instead, the listener can focus on the sound as reaching the ears (namely the proximal stimulus). The instructions given to the listener when assessing loudness can drive focus toward the proximal or distal stimulus. However, focusing on the distal stimulus requires to have sufficient information about the sound source, which could be provided by either the environment or by the stimulus itself. The present study gathers three experiments designed to assess loudness when driving listeners' focus toward the proximal or distal stimuli. Listeners were provided with different quality and quantity of information about the source depending on the environment (visible or hidden sources, free field or reverberant rooms) and on the stimulus itself (noise or speech). The results show that listeners reported constant loudness when asked to focus on the distal stimulus only, provided enough information about the source was available. These results highlight that loudness relies on the way the listener focuses on the stimuli and emphasize the importance of the instructions that are given in loudness studies.

Interaural speech asymmetry predicts bilateral speech intelligibility but not listening effort in adults with bilateral cochlear implants

Introduction

Bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) can facilitate improved speech intelligibility in noise and sound localization abilities compared to a unilateral implant in individuals with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss. Still, many individuals with BiCIs do not benefit from binaural hearing to the same extent that normal hearing (NH) listeners do. For example, binaural redundancy, a speech intelligibility benefit derived from having access to duplicate copies of a signal, is highly variable among BiCI users. Additionally, patients with hearing loss commonly report elevated listening effort compared to NH listeners. There is some evidence to suggest that BiCIs may reduce listening effort compared to a unilateral CI, but the limited existing literature has not shown this consistently. Critically, no studies to date have investigated this question using pupillometry to quantify listening effort, where large pupil sizes indicate high effort and small pupil sizes indicate low effort. Thus, the present study aimed to build on existing literature by investigating the potential benefits of BiCIs for both speech intelligibility and listening effort.

Methods

Twelve BiCI adults were tested in three listening conditions: Better Ear, Poorer Ear, and Bilateral. Stimuli were IEEE sentences presented from a loudspeaker at 0° azimuth in quiet. Participants were asked to repeat back the sentences, and responses were scored by an experimenter while changes in pupil dilation were measured.

Results

On average, participants demonstrated similar speech intelligibility in the Better Ear and Bilateral conditions, and significantly worse speech intelligibility in the Poorer Ear condition. Despite similar speech intelligibility in the Better Ear and Bilateral conditions, pupil dilation was significantly larger in the Bilateral condition.

Discussion

These results suggest that the BiCI users tested in this study did not demonstrate binaural redundancy in quiet. The large interaural speech asymmetries demonstrated by participants may have precluded them from obtaining binaural redundancy, as shown by the inverse relationship between the two variables. Further, participants did not obtain a release from effort when listening with two ears versus their better ear only. Instead, results indicate that bilateral listening elicited increased effort compared to better ear listening, which may be due to poor integration of asymmetric inputs.

Mathematical framework for place coding in the auditory system

In the auditory system, tonotopy is postulated to be the substrate for a place code, where sound frequency is encoded by the location of the neurons that fire during the stimulus. Though conceptually simple, the computations that allow for the representation of intensity and complex sounds are poorly understood. Here, a mathematical framework is developed in order to define clearly the conditions that support a place code. To accommodate both frequency and intensity information, the neural network is described as a space with elements that represent individual neurons and clusters of neurons. A mapping is then constructed from acoustic space to neural space so that frequency and intensity are encoded, respectively, by the location and size of the clusters. Algebraic operations -addition and multiplication- are derived to elucidate the rules for representing, assembling, and modulating multi-frequency sound in networks. The resulting outcomes of these operations are consistent with network simulations as well as with electrophysiological and psychophysical data. The analyses show how both frequency and intensity can be encoded with a purely place code, without the need for rate or temporal coding schemes. The algebraic operations are used to describe loudness summation and suggest a mechanism for the critical band. The mathematical approach complements experimental and computational approaches and provides a foundation for interpreting data and constructing models.

Does Loudness Relate to the Strength of the Sound Produced by the Source or Received by the Ears? A Review of How Focus Affects Loudness

Loudness is the magnitude of the auditory sensation that a listener experiences when exposed to a sound. Several sound attributes are reported to affect loudness, such as the sound pressure level at the listener's ears and the spectral content. In addition to these physical attributes of the stimulus, some subjective attributes also appear to affect loudness. When presented with a sound, a listener interacts with an auditory object and can focus on several aspects of the latter. Loudness appears to differ depending on how listeners apprehend this object, notably whether they focus on the sound that reaches their ears or that is produced by the source. The way listeners focus on the auditory object may depend on the stimulus itself. For instance, they might be more likely to focus on the sound emitted by the source if the latter is visible. The instructions given by the experimenters can also explicitly direct the listener's focus on the sound reaching the ears or emitted by the source. The present review aims at understanding how listeners focus on the auditory object depending on the stimuli and instructions they are provided with, and to describe how loudness depends on this focus.

Perceptual Benefits of Extended Bandwidth Hearing Aids With Children: A Within-Subject Design Using Clinically Available Hearing Aids

Purpose The aim of the study was to investigate the achieved audibility with clinically available, modern, high-end, behind-the-ear hearing aids fitted using the Desired Sensation Level v5.0 child prescription for a clinical sample of children with hearing impairment and the effect of the extended bandwidth provided by the hearing aids on several outcome measures. Method The achieved audibility was measured using the maximum audible output frequency method. Twenty-eight children (7-17 years old) with mild to severe hearing losses completed this study. Two hearing aid conditions were fitted for each participant: an extended bandwidth condition, which was fitted to targets as closely as possible, and a restricted bandwidth condition, for which aided output was restricted above 4.5 kHz. Consonant discrimination in noise, subjective preference, aided loudness growth, and preferred listening levels were evaluated in both conditions. Results The extended bandwidth hearing aid fittings provided speech audibility above 4.5 kHz for all children, with an average maximum audible output frequency of 7376 Hz (SD = 1669 Hz). When compared to a restricted bandwidth, the extended bandwidth condition led to an improvement of 5.4% for consonant discrimination in noise scores, mostly attributable to /s/, /z/, and /t/ phoneme perception. Aided loudness results and preferred listening levels were not significantly different across bandwidth conditions; however, 65% of the children indicated a subjective preference for the extended bandwidth. Conclusion The study suggests that providing the full bandwidth available, with modern, behind-the-ear hearing aids, leads to improved audibility, when compared to restricted bandwidth hearing aids, and that it leads to beneficial outcomes for children who use hearing aids, fitted to the Desired Sensation Level v5.0 child prescription, without causing significant increases in their loudness perception.

Speech recognition, loudness, and preference with extended bandwidth hearing aids for adult hearing aid users

Objective: In contrast to the past, some current hearing aids can provide gain for frequencies above 4-5 kHz. This study assessed the effect of wider bandwidth on outcome measures using hearing aids fitted with the DSL v5.0 prescription.Design: There were two conditions: an extended bandwidth condition, for which the maximum available bandwidth was provided, and a restricted bandwidth condition, in which gain was reduced for frequencies above 4.5 kHz. Outcome measures were assessed in both conditions.Study sample: Twenty-four participants with mild-to-moderately-severe sensorineural high-frequency sloping hearing loss.Results: Providing extended bandwidth resulted in maximum audible output frequency values of 7.5 kHz on average for an input level of 65 dB SPL. An improvement in consonant discrimination scores (4.1%), attributable to better perception of /s/, /z/, and /t/ phonemes, was found in the extended bandwidth condition, but no significant change in loudness perception or preferred listening levels was found. Most listeners (79%) had either no preference (33%) or some preference for the extended bandwidth condition (46%).Conclusions: The results suggest that providing the maximum bandwidth available with modern hearing aids fitted with DSL v5.0, using targets from 0.25 to 8 kHz, can be beneficial for the tested population.

Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise

Objectives:

Residual acoustic hearing in electric–acoustic stimulation (EAS) can benefit cochlear implant (CI) users in increased sound quality, speech intelligibility, and improved tolerance to noise. The goal of this study was to investigate whether the low-pass–filtered acoustic speech in simulated EAS can provide the additional benefit of reducing listening effort for the spectrotemporally degraded signal of noise-band–vocoded speech.

Design:

Listening effort was investigated using a dual-task paradigm as a behavioral measure, and the NASA Task Load indeX as a subjective self-report measure. The primary task of the dual-task paradigm was identification of sentences presented in three experiments at three fixed intelligibility levels: at near-ceiling, 50%, and 79% intelligibility, achieved by manipulating the presence and level of speech-shaped noise in the background. Listening effort for the primary intelligibility task was reflected in the performance on the secondary, visual response time task. Experimental speech processing conditions included monaural or binaural vocoder, with added low-pass–filtered speech (to simulate EAS) or without (to simulate CI).

Results:

In Experiment 1, in quiet with intelligibility near-ceiling, additional low-pass–filtered speech reduced listening effort compared with binaural vocoder, in line with our expectations, although not compared with monaural vocoder. In Experiments 2 and 3, for speech in noise, added low-pass–filtered speech allowed the desired intelligibility levels to be reached at less favorable speech-to-noise ratios, as expected. It is interesting that this came without the cost of increased listening effort usually associated with poor speech-to-noise ratios; at 50% intelligibility, even a reduction in listening effort on top of the increased tolerance to noise was observed. The NASA Task Load indeX did not capture these differences.

Conclusions:

The dual-task results provide partial evidence for a potential decrease in listening effort as a result of adding low-frequency acoustic speech to noise-band–vocoded speech. Whether these findings translate to CI users with residual acoustic hearing will need to be addressed in future research because the quality and frequency range of low-frequency acoustic sound available to listeners with hearing loss may differ from our idealized simulations, and additional factors, such as advanced age and varying etiology, may also play a role.

Deriving loudness growth functions from categorical loudness scaling data

The goal of this study was to reconcile the differences between measures of loudness obtained with continuous, unbounded scaling procedures, such as magnitude estimation and production, and those obtained using a limited number of discrete categories, such as categorical loudness scaling (CLS). The former procedures yield data with ratio properties, but some listeners find it difficult to generate numbers proportional to loudness and the numbers cannot be compared across listeners to explore individual differences. CLS, where listeners rate loudness on a verbal scale, is an easier task, but the numerical values or categorical units (CUs) assigned to the points on the scale are not proportional to loudness. Sufficient CLS data are now available to assign values in sones, a scale proportional to loudness, to the loudness categories. As a demonstration of this approach, data from Heeren, Hohmann, Appell, and Verhey [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, EL314-EL319 (2013)] were used to develop a CUsone metric, whose values were then substituted for the original CU values in reanalysis of a large set of CLS data obtained by Rasetshwane, Trevino, Gombert, Liebig-Trehearn, Kopun, Jesteadt, Neely, and Gorga [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137, 1899-1913 (2015)]. The resulting data are well fitted by power functions and are in general agreement with previously published results obtained with magnitude estimation, magnitude production, and cross modality matching.

Binaural Loudness Constancy

In binaural loudness summation, diotic presentation of a sound usually produces greater loudness than monaural presentation. However, experiments using loudspeaker presentation with and without earplugs find that magnitude estimates of loudness are little altered by the earplug, suggesting a form of loudness constancy. We explored the significance of controlling stimulation of the second ear using meatal occlusion as opposed to the deactivation of one earphone. We measured the point of subjective loudness equality (PSLE) for monaural vs. binaural presentation using an adaptive technique for both speech and noise. These stimuli were presented in a reverberant room over a loudspeaker to the right of the listener, or over lightweight headphones. Using the headphones, stimuli were either presented dry, or matched to those of the loudspeaker by convolution with impulse responses measured from the loudspeaker to the listener position, using an acoustic manikin. The headphone response was also compensated. Using the loudspeaker, monaural presentation was achieved by instructing the listener to block the left ear with a finger. Near perfect binaural loudness constancy was observed using loudspeaker presentation, while there was a summation effect of 3-6 dB for both headphone conditions. However, only partial constancy was observed when meatal occlusion was simulated. These results suggest that there may be contributions to binaural loudness constancy from residual low frequencies at the occluded ear as well as a cognitive element, which is activated by the knowledge that one ear is occluded.

Loudness of low-frequency pure tones lateralized by interaural time differences

Directional loudness is that phenomenon by which the loudness of a sound may vary according to the localization of its source. This phenomenon has been mainly observed for high-frequency sounds, for sources located in the horizontal plane. Because of the acoustic shadow of the head, the left and right ear pressures are modified depending on the source azimuth and the global loudness resulting from a summation process may vary accordingly. Directional loudness has also been reported to occur at 400 Hz, where shadowing effects are usually rather small. It might therefore be suspected that directional loudness effects could be influenced by other parameters involved in the localization process. This study assessed the loudness of low-frequency pure tones (200 and 400 Hz) lateralized with headphones by applying an interaural time difference (ITD) but no interaural level difference. It showed small but significant variations of loudness with respect to ITD at a low loudness level (40 phon): ITD values associated with virtual azimuths of ±60° and ±90° led to a small but significant increase in loudness (up to 1.25 dB). However, there was no such effect at a moderate loudness level (70 phon).

Binaural loudness gain measured by simple reaction time

In order to yield equal loudness, different studies using scaling or matching methods have found binaural level differences between monaural and diotic presentations ranging from less than 2 dB to as much as 10 dB. In the present study, a reaction time methodology was employed to measure the binaural level difference producing equal reaction time (BLDERT). Participants had to respond to the onset of 1-kHz pure tones with sound pressure levels ranging from 45 to 85 dB, and being presented to the right, the left, or both ears. Equal RTs for monaural and diotic presentation (BLDERTs) were obtained with a level difference of approximately 5 dB. A second experiment showed that different results obtained for the left and right ear are largely due to the responding hand, with ipsilateral responses being faster than contralateral ones. A third experiment investigated the BLDERT for dichotic stimuli, tracing the transition between binaural and monaural stimulation. The results of all three RT experiments are consistent with current models of binaural loudness and contradict earlier claims of perfect binaural summation.

Development and current status of the "Cambridge" loudness models

This article reviews the evolution of a series of models of loudness developed in Cambridge, UK. The first model, applicable to stationary sounds, was based on modifications of the model developed by Zwicker, including the introduction of a filter to allow for the effects of transfer of sound through the outer and middle ear prior to the calculation of an excitation pattern, and changes in the way that the excitation pattern was calculated. Later, modifications were introduced to the assumed middle-ear transfer function and to the way that specific loudness was calculated from excitation level. These modifications led to a finite calculated loudness at absolute threshold, which made it possible to predict accurately the absolute thresholds of broadband and narrowband sounds, based on the assumption that the absolute threshold corresponds to a fixed small loudness. The model was also modified to give predictions of partial loudness—the loudness of one sound in the presence of another. This allowed predictions of masked thresholds based on the assumption that the masked threshold corresponds to a fixed small partial loudness. Versions of the model for time-varying sounds were developed, which allowed prediction of the masked threshold of any sound in a background of any other sound. More recent extensions incorporate binaural processing to account for the summation of loudness across ears. In parallel, versions of the model for predicting loudness for hearing-impaired ears have been developed and have been applied to the development of methods for fitting multichannel compression hearing aids.

Measurement and modeling of binaural loudness summation for hearing-impaired listeners

The summation of loudness across ears is often studied by measuring the level difference required for equal loudness (LDEL) of monaural and diotic sounds. Typically, the LDEL is ∼5-6 dB, consistent with the idea that a diotic sound is ∼1.5 times as loud as the same sound presented monaurally at the same level, as predicted by the loudness model of Moore and Glasberg [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 1604-1612 (2007)]. One might expect that the LDEL would be <5-6 dB for hearing-impaired listeners, because loudness recruitment leads to a more rapid change of loudness for a given change in level. However, previous data sometimes showed similar LDEL values for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Here, the LDEL was measured for hearing-impaired listeners using narrowband and broadband noises centered at 500 Hz, where audiometric thresholds were near-normal, and at 3000 or 4000 Hz, where audiometric thresholds were elevated. The mean LDEL was 5.6 dB at 500 Hz and 4.2 dB at the higher center frequencies. The results were predicted reasonably well by an extension of the loudness model of Moore and Glasberg.