Level differences at typical MAAs stay below just-noticeable-differences for hearing-impaired listeners
Evidence
However, the subjects did not only have the frequency shaping to listen for, but consequently also a level cue. To quantify whether the level cue was large enough for the test subjects to take advantage of it, the rms-levels were calculated for the three different cue sets. Unfortunately, the specific hearing loss of a specific test subject, and the frequency range one includes in the analysis, very much affects the rms difference between different incidence angles, making it difficult to make conclusions. However, at large angular differences it was clearly observed that the level cue becomes prominent, whereas the level cue decreased with decreasing incidence angle. At average MAAs (< 35° for HI) level-cue magnitudes (< approximately 1 dB) were found to be smaller than the level just-noticeable-differences for HI test subjects reported to be 1–2 dB (Moore 2003 ). This indicates that most subjects likely used the frequency-shaping cue rather than the level cue. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3052
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- XREF: Ties to Moore’s just-noticeable-difference values for level that the reader may have met in other hearing chapters.
Related
- Level differences at typical MAAs fall below the 1-2 dB just-noticeable difference (similarity 0.96)
- Hearing-impaired listeners rely on spectral not level cues at threshold (similarity 0.94)
- Hearing-impaired level just-noticeable-differences are about 1 to 2 dB (similarity 0.92)
- Level differences alone are too small to drive minimum audible angle discrimination (similarity 0.90)
- Hearing-impaired subjects localized via pinna frequency shaping, not level differences (similarity 0.85)
- Hearing becomes less sensitive to frequency variations as level increases (similarity 0.82)
- Pinna frequency-shaping cues, not level cues, drive sound localization at typical angular thresholds (similarity 0.82)
- Down-shifted Weinrich cues improve MAA in hearing-impaired listeners by about ten degrees (similarity 0.81)
- Cochlear frequency selectivity decreases as sound level increases (similarity 0.81)
- Just-noticeable SPL differences stay constant near 1 dB across wide ranges (similarity 0.81)
- Hearing-impaired listeners gain far less from noise gaps than normal listeners (similarity 0.81)
- Hearing-impaired listeners benefit less from masker fluctuation when spectral resolution is degraded (similarity 0.80)
- Cue type but not reference angle affected hearing-impaired localization acuity (similarity 0.80)
- Aging and hearing impairment raise thresholds for temporal and level-based lateralization cues. (similarity 0.80)
- Frequency selectivity in normal-hearing listeners worsens at high sound levels (similarity 0.80)