Sound Localization from Binaural Cues by the Barn Owl Auditory System

Author(s):  
Andrew Moiseff
Author(s):  
Hidetaka Morisawa ◽  
Daisuke Hirayama ◽  
Kazuhisa Fujita ◽  
Yoshiki Kashimori ◽  
Takeshi Kambara

2000 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 2300-2314 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Koch ◽  
B. Grothe

To date, most physiological studies that investigated binaural auditory processing have addressed the topic rather exclusively in the context of sound localization. However, there is strong psychophysical evidence that binaural processing serves more than only sound localization. This raises the question of how binaural processing of spatial cues interacts with cues important for feature detection. The temporal structure of a sound is one such feature important for sound recognition. As a first approach, we investigated the influence of binaural cues on temporal processing in the mammalian auditory system. Here, we present evidence that binaural cues, namely interaural intensity differences (IIDs), have profound effects on filter properties for stimulus periodicity of auditory midbrain neurons in the echolocating big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus. Our data indicate that these effects are partially due to changes in strength and timing of binaural inhibitory inputs. We measured filter characteristics for the periodicity (modulation frequency) of sinusoidally frequency modulated sounds (SFM) under different binaural conditions. As criteria, we used 50% filter cutoff frequencies of modulation transfer functions based on discharge rate as well as synchronicity of discharge to the sound envelope. The binaural conditions were contralateral stimulation only, equal stimulation at both ears (IID = 0 dB), and more intense at the ipsilateral ear (IID = −20, −30 dB). In 32% of neurons, the range of modulation frequencies the neurons responded to changed considerably comparing monaural and binaural (IID =0) stimulation. Moreover, in ∼50% of neurons the range of modulation frequencies was narrower when the ipsilateral ear was favored (IID = −20) compared with equal stimulation at both ears (IID = 0). In ∼10% of the neurons synchronization differed when comparing different binaural cues. Blockade of the GABAergic or glycinergic inputs to the cells recorded from revealed that inhibitory inputs were at least partially responsible for the observed changes in SFM filtering. In 25% of the neurons, drug application abolished those changes. Experiments using electronically introduced interaural time differences showed that the strength of ipsilaterally evoked inhibition increased with increasing modulation frequencies in one third of the cells tested. Thus glycinergic and GABAergic inhibition is at least one source responsible for the observed interdependence of temporal structure of a sound and spatial cues.


2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (09) ◽  
pp. 791-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyne Carette ◽  
Tim Van den Bogaert ◽  
Mark Laureyns ◽  
Jan Wouters

Background: Several studies have demonstrated negative effects of directional microphone configurations on left-right and front-back (FB) sound localization. New processing schemes, such as frequency-dependent directionality and front focus with wireless ear-to-ear communication in recent, commercial hearing aids may preserve the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and may introduce useful spectral cues necessary for FB disambiguation. Purpose: In this study, two hearing aids with different processing schemes, which were both designed to preserve the ability to localize sounds in the horizontal plane (left-right and FB), were compared. Research Design: We compared horizontal (left-right and FB) sound localization performance of hearing aid users fitted with two types of behind-the-ear (BTE) devices. The first type of BTE device had four different programs that provided (1) no directionality, (2–3) symmetric frequency-dependent directionality, and (4) an asymmetric configuration. The second pair of BTE devices was evaluated in its omnidirectional setting. This setting automatically activates a soft forward-oriented directional scheme that mimics the pinna effect. Also, wireless communication between the hearing aids was present in this configuration (5). A broadband stimulus was used as a target signal. The directional hearing abilities of the listeners were also evaluated without hearing aids as a reference. Study Sample: A total of 12 listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss participated in this study. All were experienced hearing-aid users. As a reference, 11 listeners with normal hearing participated. Data Collection and Analysis: The participants were positioned in a 13-speaker array (left-right, –90°/+90°) or 7-speaker array (FB, 0–180°) and were asked to report the number of the loudspeaker located the closest to where the sound was perceived. The root mean square error was calculated for the left-right experiment, and the percentage of FB errors was used as a FB performance measure. Results were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the left-right localization task, no significant differences could be proven between the unaided condition and both partial directional schemes and the omnidirectional scheme. The soft forward-oriented system and the asymmetric system did show a detrimental effect compared with the unaided condition. On average, localization was worst when users used the asymmetric condition. Analysis of the results of the FB experiment showed good performance, similar to unaided, with both the partial directional systems and the asymmetric configuration. Significantly worse performance was found with the omnidirectional and the omnidirectional soft forward-oriented BTE systems compared with the other hearing-aid systems. Conclusions: Bilaterally fitted partial directional systems preserve (part of) the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and introduce, preserve, or enhance useful spectral cues that allow FB disambiguation. Omnidirectional systems, although good for left-right localization, do not provide the user with enough spectral information for an optimal FB localization performance.


1996 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 372-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Datum ◽  
Francesco Palmieri ◽  
Andrew Moiseff

2005 ◽  
Vol 191 (10) ◽  
pp. 889-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Langemann ◽  
M. A. Zokoll ◽  
G. M. Klump

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document