Home' Accord : Accord June 2017 Contents Figure 8. Errors in front-back localization and overall localization errors for
sounds coming from multiple angles were reduced with Spatial SenseTM
Nine participants also wore hearing instruments pro-
grammed with Binaural DirectionalityTM and Binaural
Directionality II with Spatial SenseTM in a single-blinded
crossover design. They completed the Speech, Spa-
tial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ)29 and a subjective
rating questionnaire for each. One general finding was
that ratings clustered in the positive direction regard-
less of whether the participants were evaluating Binau-
ral Directionality or Binaural Directionality II with Spatial
Sense. This supports the superior performance and
excellent sound quality of existing products such as
ReSound LiNXTM and ReSound VersoTM, which feature
Binaural Directionality. No significant differences were
observed between the conditions except for “ease of
listening” on the SSQ and tonal quality on the subjec-
tive rating questionnaire. In both cases Binaural Direc-
tionality II with Spatial Sense was assigned the signifi-
cantly higher rating.
The brain can only process and analyze the sound en-
vironment based on the inputs received from the ears.
Traditional wireless solutions for transmission between
two hearing instruments can optimize the audibility
and beamforming characteristics of a fitting, but do
not necessary lead to a natural, binaural processing
of sound. The underlying assumptions made by such
systems are that the signal of interest is stable and
predictable, which is not the case in the majority of
real-world listening situations. The Surround Sound
by ReSoundTM signal processing system is guided by
the philosophy of providing a natural hearing experi-
ence. Therefore, Binaural Directionality II with Spatial
Sense allows for the brain to receive the best possible
representation of the sound, by focusing on the user
and natural sound processing as opposed to the hear-
ing instruments and their prescribed signal of interest.
With this approach, the user determines the signal of
interest. In addition, Spatial Sense preserves localiza-
tion cues to allow for true spatialization and the most
natural listening experience ever realized with hearing
Front-Back confusions (%)
Overall RMS (degrees)
With Spatial Sense
Without Spatial Sense
1. Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R. The effect of head induced
interaural time and level differences on speech intelligi-
bility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988:83; 1508 – 1516.
2. Brimijoin WO, Whitmer WM, McShefferty D, Akeroyd
MA. The effect of hearing aid microphone mode on per-
formance in an auditory orienting task. Ear Hear. 2014:
3. Zurek PM. Binaural advantages and directional effects
in speech intelligibility. In G. Studebaker & I. Hochberg
(Eds.), Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Perfor-
mance. Boston: College-Hill, 1993.
4. Akeroyd MA. The across frequency independence of
equalization of interaural time delay in the equalization
cancellation model of binaural unmasking. J Acoust
Soc Am. 2004:116;1135–48.
5. Edmonds BA, Culling JF. The spatial unmasking of
speech: evidence for within-channel processing of in-
teraural time delay. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005:117;3069–
6. Shinn-Cunningham B, Ihlefeld A, Satyavarta, Larson
E. Bottom-up and Top-down Influences on Spatial Un-
masking. Acta Acustica united with Acustica. 2005:91;
7. Simon H, Levitt H. Effect of dual sensory loss on au-
ditory localization: Implications for intervention. Trends
8. Walden B, Surr R, Cord M, Dyrlund O. Predicting hear-
ing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. J
Am Acad Audiol. 2004:15;365-96.
9. Walden B, Surr R, Cord M, Grant K, Summers V, Ditt-
berner A. The robustness of hearing aid microphone
preferences in everyday environments. J Am Acad Au-
10. Hornsby B. Effects of noise configuration and noise
type on binaural benefit with asymmetric directional
fittings. Seminar presented at: 155th Meeting of the
Acoustical Society of America; June 30-July 4, 2008;
11. Cord MT, Walden BE, Surr RK, Dittberner AB. Field
evaluation of an asymmetric directional microphone fit-
ting. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007:18;245-56.
12. Bentler RA, Egge JLM, Tubbs JL, Dittberner AB,
Flamme GA. Quantification of directional benefit across
different polar response patterns. J Am Acad Audiol.
13. Hornsby B, Ricketts T. Effects of noise source con-
figuration on directional benefit using symmetric and
asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings. Ear Hear.
14. Coughlin M, Hallenbeck S, Whitmer W, Dittberner A,
Bondy J. Directional benefit and signal-of-interest loca-
tion. Seminar presented at: American Academy of Au-
diology 20th Annual Convention; 2008; Charlotte, NC.
15. Cord MT, Surr RK, Walden BE, Olson L. Performance
of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life.
J Am Acad Audiol. 2002: 13; 295-307.
16. Jespersen CT. Independent study identifies a method
for evaluating hearing instrument sound quality. Hear
Rev. 2014: 21(3); 36-40.
17. Shinn-Cunningham BG, Best V. Selective attention in
normal and impaired hearing. Trends Amplif. 2008:
18. Orton JF, Preves D. Localization as a function of hear-
ing aid microphone placement. Hearing Instruments.
1979: 30(1); 18-21.
19. Westerman S, Topholm J. Comparing BTEs and ITEs
for localizing speech. Hearing Instruments. 1985: 36(2);
20. Udesen J, Piechowiak T, Gran F, Dittberner A. Degra-
dation of spatial sound by the hearing aid. Proceed-
ings of ISAAR 2013: Auditory Plasticity – Listening with
the Brain. 4th symposium om audiotry and Audiologi-
cal Research. August 2013, Nyborg, Denmark. Dau T,
Santurette S, Dalsgaard JC, Tanebjaerg L, Andersen T,
Poulsen T eds.
21. Kollmeier 1993 check this
22. Weinrich SG. Improved externalization and frontal per-
ception of headphone signals. Presentation at the 92nd
Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, March
24-27, 1992, Vienna.
23. MacPherson EA, Middlebrooks. Binaural weighting of
monaural spectral cues for sound localization. J Acoust
Soc Am. 2007: 121 (6); 3677-3688.
24. Shaw EAG. Transformation of sound pressure level from
the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. J
Acoust Soc Am. 1974: 56; 1848-1861.
25. Shaw EAG, Vaillancourt MM. Transformation of sound
pressure level from the free field to the eardrum pre-
sented in numerical form. J Acoust Soc Am. 1985: 78;
26. Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Hurley AE, Wen H, Kemp DT. Bin-
aural noise suppresses linear click-evoked otoacoustic
emissions more than ipsilateral or contralateral noise.
Hearing Research.1993: 87; 96-103.
27. Maison S, Micheyl C, Collet L. contralateral frequency-
modulated tones suppress transient-evoked otoacous-
tic emissions in humans. Hearing Research. 1998: 117;
28. Kates JM. Binaural compression system. US Patent
Application 20040190734 A1, Published Sept. 30,
29. Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Quali-
ties of Hearing Scale. Int J Audiol. 2004: 43(2); 85-99.
Links Archive Accord March 2017 AcAud Annual Report 2017 Navigation Previous Page Next Page