Spatial auditory change detection in listeners with hearing loss

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

ABSTRACT Everyday listening relies on the auditory system’s ability to automatically monitor the background soundscape and detect new or changing sources. Although change detection is a fundamental aspect of situational awareness, little is known about how hearing impairment affects this ability. This study examined how sensorineural hearing loss influences spatial auditory change detection. Older hearing-impaired listeners (N = 30) completed a spatial change detection task requiring them to identify the appearance of a new sound source within a complex spatialised acoustic scene. Hearing loss was characterised by three factors that were measured with standard clinical tests: audiometric hearing thresholds, sensitivity to small level changes, and sensitivity to spectrotemporal modulation. Simple and mixed-effects linear models were used to test how these factors predicted reaction time, hit rate, and false alarm rate. Listeners with poorer spectrotemporal sensitivity, higher audiometric hearing thresholds, and older age showed slower and less accurate detection, whereas sensitivity to small changes in level did not predict outcomes. Detection also varied with spatial location, where appearing sources from behind were detected more slowly and less accurately than those from the front or sides. Numerical analysis using head-related transfer functions confirmed that these rear-field effects were unlikely to be explained by overall or frequency-specific acoustic level differences. These findings reveal that hearing loss, age, and spatial factors jointly shape listeners’ ability to monitor dynamic auditory scenes. Additionally, testing spectrotemporal sensitivity offers a promising clinical measure of non-speech auditory processing with relevance for hearing-aid fitting and situational awareness.
Full text 1,900 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT Everyday listening relies on the auditory system’s ability to automatically monitor the background soundscape and detect new or changing sources. Although change detection is a fundamental aspect of situational awareness, little is known about how hearing impairment affects this ability. This study examined how sensorineural hearing loss influences spatial auditory change detection. Older hearing-impaired listeners (N = 30) completed a spatial change detection task requiring them to identify the appearance of a new sound source within a complex spatialised acoustic scene. Hearing loss was characterised by three factors that were measured with standard clinical tests: audiometric hearing thresholds, sensitivity to small level changes, and sensitivity to spectrotemporal modulation. Simple and mixed-effects linear models were used to test how these factors predicted reaction time, hit rate, and false alarm rate. Listeners with poorer spectrotemporal sensitivity, higher audiometric hearing thresholds, and older age showed slower and less accurate detection, whereas sensitivity to small changes in level did not predict outcomes. Detection also varied with spatial location, where appearing sources from behind were detected more slowly and less accurately than those from the front or sides. Numerical analysis using head-related transfer functions confirmed that these rear-field effects were unlikely to be explained by overall or frequency-specific acoustic level differences. These findings reveal that hearing loss, age, and spatial factors jointly shape listeners’ ability to monitor dynamic auditory scenes. Additionally, testing spectrotemporal sensitivity offers a promising clinical measure of non-speech auditory processing with relevance for hearing-aid fitting and situational awareness. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00