Article  |   April 2012
Informational Masking and Spatial Hearing in Listeners With and Without Unilateral Hearing Loss
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ann M. Rothpletz
    University of Louisville, Kentucky
  • Frederic L. Wightman
    University of Louisville, Kentucky
  • Doris J. Kistler
    University of Louisville, Kentucky
  • Correspondence to Ann M. Rothpletz: ann.rothpletz@louisville.edu
  • Editor: Robert Schlauch
    Editor: Robert Schlauch×
  • Associate Editor: Beverly Wright
    Associate Editor: Beverly Wright×
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Hearing
Article   |   April 2012
Informational Masking and Spatial Hearing in Listeners With and Without Unilateral Hearing Loss
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2012, Vol.55, 511-531. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0205)
History: Accepted 17 Aug 2011 , Received 26 Jul 2010 , Revised 13 Jan 2011
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2012, Vol.55, 511-531. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0205)
History: Accepted 17 Aug 2011 , Received 26 Jul 2010 , Revised 13 Jan 2011

Purpose: This study assessed selective listening for speech in individuals with and without unilateral hearing loss (UHL) and the potential relationship between spatial release from informational masking and localization ability in listeners with UHL.

Method: Twelve adults with UHL and 12 normal-hearing controls completed a series of monaural and binaural speech tasks that were designed to measure informational masking. They also completed a horizontal localization task.

Results: Monaural performance by participants with UHL was comparable to that of normal-hearing participants. Unlike the normal-hearing participants, the participants with UHL did not exhibit a true spatial release from informational masking. Rather, their performance could be predicted by head shadow effects. Performance among participants with UHL in the localization task was quite variable, with some showing near-normal abilities and others demonstrating no localization ability.

Conclusion: Individuals with UHL did not show deficits in all listening situations but were at a significant disadvantage when listening to speech in environments where normal-hearing listeners benefit from spatial separation between target and masker. This inability to capitalize on spatial cues for selective listening does not appear to be related to localization ability.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Binaural Advantage for Younger and Older Adults With Normal Hearing
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2008, Vol.51, 539-556. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/039)
The Impact of Listening Condition on Background Noise Acceptance for Young Adults With Normal Hearing
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2012, Vol.55, 1356-1372. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0140)
Correction of the Peripheral Spatiotemporal Response Pattern: A Potential New Signal-Processing StrategyShi et al.:Signal Processing for Spatiotemporal Pattern Correction
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research August 2006, Vol.49, 848-855. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/060)
The Effects of Age and Infant Hearing Status on Maternal Use of Prosodic Cues for Clause Boundaries in Speech
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research June 2011, Vol.54, 740-754. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0225)
Erratum
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research August 2009, Vol.52, 1097. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/er-0603)