Down-shifted Weinrich cues improve MAA in hearing-impaired listeners by about ten degrees
Evidence
These analyses showed a significant difference between N and W cues (mean MAA difference of around 10°, p = 0.0005) and a non-significant difference between N and T cues (mean MAA difference of around 5°, p = 0.06). — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3052
Categorization
- corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3052
- XREF: connects to: Oversized-pinna cue simulation barely improves vertical localization for hearing-impaired listeners — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3048; Hearing impairment makes fine high-frequency pinna cues imperceptible; Enhanced pinna cues only partially close the spatial-resolution gap in hearing-impaired listeners — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3133 (+6 more)
Broader Connections
- Wide-cue pinna size improves MAA only for hearing-impaired listeners
#complicates(0.85) - Hearing-impaired subjects localized via pinna frequency shaping, not level differences
#corroborates(0.82) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3124 - Normal-hearing MAA is unaffected by pinna cue type or reference angle
#corroborates(0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3118 - Level differences at typical MAAs stay below just-noticeable-differences for hearing-impaired listeners
#corroborates(0.78)