Sound localization deficits in hearing loss come from neural coding changes, not audibility.

Evidence

A number of studies have evaluated the effects of masking in listeners with hearing loss, with a general consensus being that listeners with hearing loss experience poorer frequency selectivity and a greater susceptibility to masking than their normal-hearing counterparts (e.g., Florentine, Buus, Scharf, & Zwicker, 1980; Leek & Summers, 1993). The high stimulus levels used may be part of the reason for poor frequency selectivity in listeners with hearing loss, due to the worsening of frequency selectivity with increasing level. However, even when stimuli are equated between the two groups of listeners and threshold elevation is taken into account, listeners with hearing loss appear to experience an additional reduction in frequency selectivity due to their auditory pathology (Dubno & Schaefer, 1995). — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 558 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Neural hearing damage occurs without measurable threshold elevation; Reduced target audibility, not spatial processing loss, explains much of the hearing-loss speech deficit — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1719; Hearing-impaired deficits persist even when only energetic glimpses are presented (+17 more)

Related

• Hearing loss impairs frequency selectivity beyond what stimulus level differences explain. (similarity 0.89)
• Hearing aids cannot restore sound localization because coding damage, not audibility, is the cause (similarity 0.89)
• Restoring audibility does not restore sound localization in hearing loss (similarity 0.88)
• Sensorineural hearing loss causes wide variability in sound localization ability (similarity 0.87)
• Apparent spatial deficits in hearing loss may really be audibility deficits (similarity 0.87)
• Hearing aids fail to restore sound localization in many listeners (similarity 0.86)
• Hearing aids cannot restore sound localization but may aid ILD representation. (similarity 0.85)
• Sensorineural hearing loss worsens masking beyond mere threshold elevation (similarity 0.85)
• Frequency selectivity in normal-hearing listeners worsens at high sound levels (similarity 0.84)
• Reduced target audibility, not spatial processing loss, explains much of the hearing-loss speech deficit (similarity 0.84)
• Hearing-impaired deficits persist even when only energetic glimpses are presented (similarity 0.84)
• Auditory nerve damage degrades sound localization by corrupting ILD and ITD cues (similarity 0.84)
• Hearing-impaired speech deficits stem from using glimpsed information, not spatial processing (similarity 0.84)
• Cochlear frequency selectivity decreases as sound level increases (similarity 0.84)
• Reduced frequency selectivity hurts speech perception less than reduced audibility does (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Forward-masking recovery is slower in sensorineural hearing loss regardless of audibility #corroborates (0.80)
• Hearing aids distort localization cues and often worsen localization #complicates (0.75)
• Hearing loss impairs frequency selectivity beyond what stimulus level differences explain. #corroborates (0.75) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 558