Detection of interaural phase shift between a subaudible and an audible tone

Can a shift in interaural phase between a subthreshold signal and an audible contralateral probe tone affect perception of the probe? To obtain an answer, an 800-Hz tone was presented to both ears. The tone was presented continuously to one ear (-25 to + 10 dB SL) and in a sequence of four bursts per trial to the other ear (+ 10 dB SL). Interaural phase was reversed for either the second or the fourth burst in a 2 AFC task. Interaural phase-shift detection threshold (65% correct) varied with the intensity of the continuous signal; across subjects, this threshold varied from -21 to + 1 dB SL. When a 300-or 500-Hz masking tone was added to the ear with the continuous signal, phase-shift detection accuracy depended primarily upon the sensation level of the signal rather than its sound pressure level. These findings demonstrate temporal encoding at signal levels well below hearing threshold.     

Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners

The effect of head-induced interaural time delay (ITD) and interaural level differences (ILD) on binaural speech intelligibility in noise was studied for listeners with symmetrical and asymmetrical sensorineural hearing losses. The material, recorded with a KEMAR manikin in an anechoic room, consisted of speech, presented from the front (0 degree), and noise, presented at azimuths of 0 degree, 30 degrees, and 90 degrees. Derived noise signals, containing either only ITD or only ILD, were generated using a computer. For both groups of subjects, speech-reception thresholds (SRT) for sentences in noise were determined as a function of: (1) noise azimuth, (2) binaural cue, and (3) an interaural difference in overall presentation level, simulating the effect of a monaural hearing acid. Comparison of the mean results with corresponding data obtained previously from normal-hearing listeners shows that the hearing impaired have a 2.5 dB higher SRT in noise when both speech and noise are presented from the front, and 2.6-5.1 dB less binaural gain when the noise azimuth is changed from 0 degree to 90 degrees. The gain due to ILD varies among the hearing-impaired listeners between 0 dB and normal values of 7 dB or more. It depends on the high-frequency hearing loss at the side presented with the most favorable signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. The gain due to ITD is nearly normal for the symmetrically impaired (4.2 dB, compared with 4.7 dB for the normal hearing), but only 2.5 dB in the case of asymmetrical impairment. When ITD is introduced in noise already containing ILD, the resulting gain is 2-2.5 dB for all groups. The only marked effect of the interaural difference in overall presentation level is a reduction of the gain due to ILD when the level at the ear with the better S/N ratio is decreased. This implies that an optimal monaural hearing aid (with a moderate gain) will hardly interfere with unmasking through ITD, while it may increase the gain due to ILD by preventing or diminishing threshold effects.     

Statistical bias in the assessment of binaural benefit relative to the better ear

The comparison of measured binaural performance with the better of two monaural measures (one from each ear) may lead to underestimated binaural benefit due to statistical sampling bias that favors the monaural condition. The mathematical basis of such bias is reviewed and applied to speech reception thresholds measured in 32 bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users for coincident and spatially separated speech and noise. It is shown that the bias increases with test-retest variation and is maximal for uncorrelated samples of identical underlying performance in each ear. When measured differences between ears were assumed to reflect actual underlying performance differences, the bias averaged across the CI users was about 0.2 dB for coincident target and noise, and 0.1 dB for spatially separated conditions. An upper-bound estimate of the bias, based on the assumption that both ears have the same underlying performance and observed differences were due to test-retest variation, was about 0.7 dB regardless of noise location. To the extent that the test-retest variation in these data is comparable to other studies, the results indicate that binaural benefits in bilateral cochlear implant users are not substantially underestimated (on for average) when binaural performance is compared with the better ear in each listening configuration.     

Psychophysical correlates of contralateral efferent suppression. I. The role of the medial olivocochlear system in "central masking" in nonhuman primates

An extensive physiological literature, including experimental and clinical studies in humans, demonstrates that activation of the medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferent system, by either contralateral sound or electrical stimulation, can produce significant alterations in cochlear function and suggests a role for the MOC system in influencing the auditory behavior of binaural hearing. The present data are from psychophysical studies in nonhuman primates which seek to determine if the noted physiological changes in response to contralateral acoustic stimulation have a perceptual counterpart. Four juvenile Japanese macaques were trained to respond to the presence of 1-s sinusoids, presented to the test ear, in an operant reinforcement paradigm. Thresholds were compared for frequencies ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 kHz in quiet, with thresholds measured when continuous, two octave-band noise, centered on the test tone frequency, was presented in the contralateral ear. Contralateral noise was presented at levels of 10-60 dB above detection threshold for the test-tone frequency. While some variability was evident across subjects, both in the frequency distribution and magnitude (as a function of contralateral noise level), all subjects exhibited an increase, or suppression of thresholds in the presence of contralateral noise. On average, thresholds increased systematically with contralateral noise level, to a peak of 7 dB. In one subject, the threshold increase seen with contralateral noise was significantly reduced when the MOC was surgically sectioned on the floor of the IVth ventricle. The characteristics of the measured shifts in behavioral thresholds, in the presence of contralateral noise reported here, are qualitatively and quantitatively similar to both efferent physiological suppression effects and psychophysical central masking threshold shifts which have been reported previously. These data suggest that at least some aspects of "central masking" are efferent-mediated peripheral processes, and that the term "central masking" may be incorrect.     

Binaural modulation masking

Modulation thresholds were measured in three subjects for a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated (SAM) wideband noise (the signal) in the presence of a second amplitude-modulated wideband noise (the masker). In monaural conditions (Mm-Sm) masker and signal were presented to only one ear; in binaural conditions (M0-S pi) the masker was presented diotically while the phase of modulation of the SAM noise signal was inverted in one ear relative to the other. In experiment 1 masker modulation frequency (fm) was fixed at 16 Hz, and signal modulation frequency (fs) was varied from 2-512 Hz. For monaural presentation, masking generally decreased as fs diverged from fm, although there was a secondary increase in masking for very low signal modulation frequencies, as reported previously [Bacon and Grantham, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 2575-2580 (1989)]. The binaural masking patterns did not show this low-frequency upturn: binaural thresholds continued to improve as fs decreased from 16 to 2 Hz. Thus, comparing masked monaural and masked binaural thresholds, there was an average binaural advantage, or masking-level difference (MLD) of 9.4 dB at fs = 2 Hz and 5.3 dB at fs = 4 Hz. In addition, there were positive MLDs for the on-frequency condition (fm = fs = 16 Hz: average MLD = 4.4 dB) and for the highest signal frequency tested (fs = 512 Hz: average MLD = 7.3 dB). In experiment 2 the signal was a SAM noise (fs = 16 Hz), and the masker was a wideband noise, amplitude-modulated by a narrow band of noise centered at fs. There was no effect on monaural or binaural thresholds as masker modulator bandwidth was varied from 4 to 20 Hz (the average MLD remained constant at 8.0 dB), which suggests that the observed "tuning" for modulation may be based on temporal pattern discrimination and not on a critical-band-like filtering mechanism. In a final condition the masker modulator was a 10-Hz-wide band of noise centered at the 64-Hz signal modulation frequency. The average MLD in this case was 7.4 dB. The results are discussed in terms of various binaural capacities that probably play a role in binaural release from modulation masking, including detection of varying interaural intensity differences (IIDs) and discrimination of interaural correlation.     

Comodulation masking release for various monaural and binaural combinations of the signal, on-frequency, and flanking bands

The threshold for a signal masked by a narrow band of noise centered at the signal frequency (the on-frequency band) may be reduced by adding to the masker a second band of noise (the flanking band) whose envelope is correlated with that of the first band. This effect is called comodulation masking release (CMR). These experiments examine two questions. (1) How does the CMR vary with the number and ear of presentation of the flanking band(s)? (2) Is it possible to obtain a CMR when a binaural masking level difference (BMLD) is already present, and vice versa? Thresholds were measured for a 400-ms signal in a continuous 25-Hz-wide noise centered at signal frequencies (fs) of 250, 1000, and 4000 Hz. This masker was presented either alone or with one or more continuous flanking bands whose envelopes were either correlated or uncorrelated with that of the on-frequency band; their frequencies ranged from 0.5fs to 1.5fs. CMRs were measured for six conditions in which the signal, the on-frequency band, and the flanking band(s) were presented in various monaural and binaural combinations. When a single flanking band was used, the CMR was typically around 2-3 dB. The CMR increased to 5-6 dB if an additional flanking band was added. The effect of the additional band was similar whether it was in the same ear as the original band or in the opposite ear. At the lowest signal frequency, a large CMR was observed in addition to a BMLD and vice versa. At the highest signal frequency, the extra release from masking was small. The results are interpreted in terms of the cues producing the CMR and the BMLD.     

The effect of diotic and dichotic level-randomization on the binaural masking-level difference

Detection thresholds for tones in narrow-band noise were measured for two binaural configurations: N(o)S(o) and N(o)S(pi). The 30-Hz noise band had a mean overall level of 65 dB SPL and was centered on 250, 500, or 5000 Hz. Signals and noise were simultaneously gated for 500, 110, or 20 ms. Three conditions of level randomization were tested: (1) no randomization; (2) diotic randomization--the stimulus level (common to both ears) was randomly chosen from an uniformly distributed 40-dB range every presentation interval; and (3) dichotic randomization--the stimulus levels for each ear were each independently and randomly chosen from the 40-dB range. Regardless of binaural configuration, level randomization had small effects on thresholds at 500 and 110 ms, implying that binaural masking-level differences (BMLDs) do not depend on interaural level differences for individual stimuli. For 20-ms stimuli, both diotic and dichotic randomization led to markedly poorer performance than at 500- and 110-ms durations; BMLDs diminished with no randomization and dichotic randomization but not with diotic randomization. The loss of BMLDs at 20 ms, with degrees-of-freedom (2WT) approximately 1, implies that changes in intracranial parameters occurring during the course of the observation interval are necessary for BMLDs when mean-level and mean-intracranial-position cues have been made unhelpful.     

Tonal masking and frequency selectivity for the monaural and binaural hearing systems

A series of masking experiments was performed with the aim of comparing frequency selectivity for the monaural and binaural systems. The masking stimulus used in this study combined a sinusoid, which was gated simultaneously with the signal, with a continuous broadband noise. Signal frequency was fixed at 500 Hz. In one condition, the tonal masker and noise were interaurally in phase and the signal was phase reversed. In a second condition, noise, tonal masker, and signal were presented to one ear alone. Signal thresholds were obtained as a function of masker frequency for these two conditions. After making an appropriate selection of noise levels, masking functions for the monaural and binaural system conditions were found to agree closely except for a region about their tips where the binaural condition was more detectable. Two possible interpretations of these results are discussed. Either the monaural and binaural systems contain filters each which have similarly shaped skirts, or the frequency selectivity observed under both diotic and dichotic conditions (for large frequency separations of masker and signal) reflect the operation of a common peripheral filter.     

Thresholds for segregating a narrow-band from a broadband noise based on interaural phase and level differences

Either an interaural phase shift or level difference was introduced to a narrow section of broadband noise in order to measure the acuity of the binaural system to segregate a narrowband from a broadband stimulus. Listeners were asked to indicate whether this dichotic noise or a totally diotic noise was presented in a single-interval procedure. Thresholds for interaural phase and level differences were estimated from four point psychometric functions. These thresholds were determined for three bandwidths of interaurally altered noise (2, 10, and 100 Hz) centered at four center frequencies (200, 500, 1000, and 1600 Hz). Thresholds were lowest when the interaurally altered band of noise was centered at 500 Hz, and thresholds increased as the bandwidth of the interaurally altered noise decreased. Performance did not exceed 75% correct when either an interaural phase shift (180 degrees) or interaural level difference (50 dB) was introduced to a 100 Hz band of noise centered at frequencies higher than 1600 Hz. In a second set of conditions, performance was measured when both an interaural phase shift and level difference were presented in a 10-Hz-wide band of noise centered at 500 Hz. A version of the Durlach E-C model was able to account for a great deal of the data. The results are discussed in terms of the Huggins dichotic pitch.     

Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids

The binaural free-field speech-reception threshold (SRT) in 70-dBA noise was measured with conversational sentences for 24 hearing-impaired subjects without hearing aids, with a hearing aid left, right, and left plus right, respectively. The sentences were always presented in front of the listener and the interfering noise, with a spectrum equal to the long-term average spectrum of the sentences, was presented either frontally, from the right, or from the left side. For subjects with only moderate hearing loss, PTA (average air-conduction hearing level at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) less than 50 dB, the SRT in 70-dBA noise in both ears is determined by the signal-to-noise ratio even if only one hearing aid is used. For larger hearing losses the SRT appears to be partly determined by the absolute threshold. In conditions with a high noise level relative to the absolute threshold, in which case for both ears the SRT is determined by the signal-to-noise ratio, a second hearing aid, just as a monaural hearing aid, generally does not improve the SRT. However, in the case of a high hearing level, or a low noise level, in which a monaural hearing aid is profitable, the use of two hearing aids is even more profitable. In a separate experiment, acoustic head shadow was measured at the entrance of the ear canal and at the microphone location of a hearing aid. It appeared that, for a lateral noise source and speech frontal, the microphone position of behind-the-ear hearing aids has a negative effect on the signal-to-noise ratio of 2-3 dB.     

Binaural versus monaural loudness: supersummation of tone partially masked by noise

A series of three experiments used the method of magnitude estimation to examine binaural summation of the loudness of a 1000-Hz tone heard in the quiet and against various backgrounds of masking noise. In the quiet, binaural loudness as measured in sones, is twice monaural loudness. Two conditions of noise masking acted to increase the ratio of binaural/monaural loudness in sones above 2:1--that is, to produce supersummation. (1) When tone was presented to both ears, but masking noise to just one ear (dichotic stimulation), the loudness of the binaural tone was 30%-35% greater than the sum of the loudness of the monaural components. This increase in summation provides a suprathreshold analog to increases in threshold sensitivity observed with dichotic stimulation (masking-level differences). (2) Supersummation was also evident when tone and noise alike were presented to both ears (diotic stimulation); here, the binaural tone's loudness was 10%-25% greater than the sum of the monaural components. The increase in summation with diotic stimulation may be related to the characteristics of binaural summation of the noise masker itself.     

Tuning in the spatial dimension: evidence from a masked speech identification task

Spatial release from masking was studied in a three-talker soundfield listening experiment. The target talker was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and the maskers were either colocated or symmetrically positioned around the target, with a different masker talker on each side. The symmetric placement greatly reduced any "better ear" listening advantage. When the maskers were separated from the target by +/-15 degrees , the average spatial release from masking was 8 dB. Wider separations increased the release to more than 12 dB. This large effect was eliminated when binaural cues and perceived spatial separation were degraded by covering one ear with an earplug and earmuff. Increasing reverberation in the room increased the target-to-masker ratio (TM) for the separated, but not colocated, conditions reducing the release from masking, although a significant advantage of spatial separation remained. Time reversing the masker speech improved performance in both the colocated and spatially separated cases but lowered TM the most for the colocated condition, also resulting in a reduction in the spatial release from masking. Overall, the spatial tuning observed appears to depend on the presence of interaural differences that improve the perceptual segregation of sources and facilitate the focus of attention at a point in space.     

Octave illusion elicited by overlapping narrowband noises

The octave or Deutsch illusion occurs when two tones, separated by about one octave, are presented simultaneously but alternating between ears, such that when the low tone is presented to the left ear the high tone is presented to the right ear and vice versa. Most subjects hear a single tone that alternates both between ears and in pitch; i.e., they hear a low pitched tone in one ear alternating with a high pitched tone in the other ear. The present study examined whether the illusion can be elicited by aperiodic signals consisting of low-frequency band-pass filtered noises with overlapping spectra. The amount of spectral overlap was held constant, but the high- and low-frequency content of the signals was systematically varied. The majority of subjects perceived an auditory illusion in terms of a dominant ear for pitch and lateralization by frequency, as proposed by Deutsch [(1975a) Sci. Am. 233, 92-104]. Furthermore, the salience of the illusion increased as the high frequency of the content in the signal increased. Since no harmonics were present in the stimuli, it is highly unlikely that this illusion is perceived on the basis of binaural diplacusis or harmonic binaural fusion.     

Influence of place synchrony on detection of a sinusoid

A series of experiments was performed to study the ability of the ear to code the temporal envelope of a waveform as demonstrated by comodulation masking release (CMR). The stimulus for all experiments was composed of a tone-burst signal, a 100-Hz-wide masker band centered at the signal frequency, and a second 100-Hz-wide noise band of variable frequency, the cue band. The cue band had a temporal envelope which was either correlated with or independent of that of the masker. The signal was a 100-Hz tone burst for most experiments. For the monotic stimulus, the correlated cue band results in lowered signal detection thresholds over a range extending from around 2/3 oct below the signal frequency to 1/3 oct above that frequency. When measured dichotically, with the signal and masker band in one ear and the cue band in the opposite ear, that effective range is expanded but the detection threshold shifts are a bit smaller. The greatest CMR is observed when the stimulus is presented diotically. With regard to effects of level and frequency, our data show CMR increasing with increasing stimulus level for a cue band lower in frequency than the signal, but show little effect of level for a cue band higher in frequency. Similarly, CMR increases with increasing stimulus frequency when the cue band is lower in frequency, but shows little effect of frequency for a cue band higher in frequency.     

Within-ear and across-ear interference in a cocktail-party listening task

Although many researchers have shown that listeners are able to selectively attend to a target speech signal when a masking talker is present in the same ear as the target speech or when a masking talker is present in a different ear than the target speech, little is known about selective auditory attention in tasks with a target talker in one ear and independent masking talkers in both ears at the same time. In this series of experiments, listeners were asked to respond to a target speech signal spoken by one of two competing talkers in their right (target) ear while ignoring a simultaneous masking sound in their left (unattended) ear. When the masking sound in the unattended ear was noise, listeners were able to segregate the competing talkers in the target ear nearly as well as they could with no sound in the unattended ear. When the masking sound in the unattended ear was speech, however, speech segregation in the target ear was substantially worse than with no sound in the unattended ear. When the masking sound in the unattended ear was time-reversed speech, speech segregation was degraded only when the target speech was presented at a lower level than the masking speech in the target ear. These results show that within-ear and across-ear speech segregation are closely related processes that cannot be performed simultaneously when the interfering sound in the unattended ear is qualitatively similar to speech.     

Testing the concept of softness imperception: loudness near threshold for hearing-impaired ears

Buus and Florentine [J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 3, 120-139 (2002)] have proposed that loudness recruitment in cases of cochlear hearing loss is caused partly by an abnormally large loudness at absolute threshold. This has been called "softness imperception." To evaluate this idea, loudness-matching functions were obtained using tones at very low sensation levels. For subjects with asymmetrical hearing loss, matches were obtained for a single frequency across ears. For subjects with sloping hearing loss, matches were obtained between tones at two frequencies, one where the absolute threshold was nearly normal and one where there was a moderate hearing loss. Loudness matching was possible for sensation levels (SLs) as low as 2 dB. When the fixed tone was presented at a very low SL in an ear (or at a frequency) where there was hearing impairment, it was matched by a tone with approximately the same SL in an ear (or at a frequency) where hearing was normal (e.g., 2 dB SL matched 2 dB SL). This relationship held for SLs up to 4-10 dB, depending on the subject. These results are not consistent with the concept of softness imperception.     

The enhancement effect: evidence for adaptation of inhibition using a binaural centering task

The enhancement effect is consistently shown when simultaneously masked stimuli are preceded by the masker alone, with a reduction in the amount of masking relative to when that precursor is absent. One explanation for this effect proposed by Viemeister and Bacon [(1982). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 71, 1502-1507] is the adaptation of inhibition, which predicts that an enhanced component (the "target") will be effectively more intense within the auditory system than one that has not been enhanced. Forward masking studies have indicated this effect of increased gain; however, other explanations of the enhancement effect have also been suggested. In order to provide an alternative measure of the amount of effective gain for an enhanced target, a subjective binaural centering task was used in which listeners matched the intensities of enhanced and unenhanced 2-kHz tones presented to opposite ears to produce a centered stimulus. The results showed that the enhancement effect produces an effective 4-5 dB increase in the level of the enhanced target. The enhancement effect was also measured using other enhancement paradigms which yielded similar results over a range of levels for the target, supporting an account based on adaptation of inhibition.     

Binaural forward and backward masking: evidence for sluggishness in binaural detection

The threshold of a short interaurally phase-inverted probe tone (20 ms, 500 Hz, S pi) was obtained in the presence of a 750-ms noise masker that was switched after 375 ms from interaurally phase-inverted (N pi) to interaurally in-phase (No). As the delay between probe-tone offset and noise phase transition is increased, the threshold decays from the N pi S pi threshold (masking level difference = 0 dB) to the No S pi threshold (masking level difference = 15 dB). The decay in this "binaural" situation is substantially slower than in a comparable "monaural" situation, where the interaural phase of the masker is held constant (N pi), but the level of the masker is reduced by 15 dB. The prolonged decay provides evidence for additional binaural sluggishness associated with "binaural forward masking." In a second experiment, "binaural backward masking" is studied by time reversing the maskers described above. Again, the situation where the phase is switched from No to N pi exhibits a slower transition than the situation with constant interaural phase (N pi) and a 15-dB increase in the level of the masker. The data for the binaural situations are compatible with the results of a related experiment, previously reported by Grantham and Wightman [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 65, 1509-1517 (1979)] and are well fit by a model that incorporates a double-sided exponential temporal integration window.     

Nonsense-syllable recognition in noise using monaural and binaural listening strategies

Using a binaurally equipped KEMAR manikin, syllables of the CUNY Nonsense Syllable Test were recorded in sound field at 0-degree azimuth against a background of cafeteria noise at 270-degrees azimuth, at several signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios. The combination of inputs recorded at each ear was delivered to ten normal-hearing (NH) and eight sensorineurally hearing impaired (HI) listeners through insert ear phones to produce five experimental listening conditions: (1) binaural head shadow (HS), in which ear presentation was analogous to the original stimulus recording, (2) binaural favorable (BF), in which the noise-shadowed (right-ear) recording was presented to both ears, (3) monaural favorable (MF), in which the noise-shadowed recording was presented only to the right ear, (4) monoaural unfavorable (MU), in which the noise-unshadowed (left ear) recording was presented only to the left ear, and (5) simulated monoaural aided (SMA), in which the noise-shadowed recording was presented to the right ear and the noise-unshadowed recording--attenuated by 20 dB relative to the HS condition--was presented to the left ear. All main effects (subject type, listening condition, and S/N ratio) were statistically significant. Normal listeners showed 3.3- and 3.2-dB advantages, respectively, due to head-shadow and binaural squelch, over hearing-impaired listeners. Some hearing-impaired listeners performed better under the SMA or BF conditions than under the HS condition. Potential digital signal processing strategies designed to optimize speech understanding under binaurally aided listening conditions are discussed.     

Monaural and binaural detection of sinusoidal phase modulation of a 500-Hz tone

The detectability of phase modulation was measured for three subjects in two-alternative temporal forced-choice experiments. In experiment 1, the detectability of sinusoidal phase modulation in a 1500-ms burst of an 80-dB (SPL), 500-Hz sinusoidal carrier presented to the left ear (monaural condition) was measured. The experiment was repeated with an 80-dB, 500-Hz static (unmodulated) tone at the right ear (dichotic condition). At a modulation rate of 1 Hz, subjects were an order of magnitude more sensitive to phase modulation in the dichotic condition than in the monaural condition. The dichotic advantage decreased monotonically with increasing modulation rate. Subjects ceased to detect movement in the dichotic stimulus above 10 Hz, but a dichotic advantage remained up to a modulation rate of 40 Hz. Thus, although sound movement detection is sluggish, detection of internal phase modulation is not. In experiment 2, thresholds for detecting 2-Hz phase modulation were measured in the dichotic condition as a function of the level of the pure tone in the right ear. The dichotic advantage persisted even when the level of the pure tone was reduced by 50 dB or more. The findings demonstrate a large dichotic advantage which persists to high modulation rates and which depends very little on interaural level differences.