Hubbry Logo
Spatial hearing lossSpatial hearing lossMain
Open search
Spatial hearing loss
Community hub
Spatial hearing loss
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Spatial hearing loss
Spatial hearing loss
Spatial hearing loss
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Spatial hearing loss
SpecialtyAudiology

Spatial hearing loss refers to a form of deafness that is an inability to use spatial cues about where a sound originates from in space. Poor sound localization in turn affects the ability to understand speech in the presence of background noise.[1]

People with spatial hearing loss have difficulty processing speech that arrives from one direction while simultaneously filtering out 'noise' arriving from other directions. Research has shown spatial hearing loss to be a leading cause of central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) in children. Children with spatial hearing loss commonly present with difficulties understanding speech in the classroom.[1] Spatial hearing loss is found in most people over 70 years of age, and can sometimes be independent of other types of age related hearing loss.[2] As with presbycusis, spatial hearing loss varies with age. Through childhood and into adulthood it can be viewed as spatial hearing gain (with it becoming easier to hear speech in noise), and then with middle age and beyond the spatial hearing loss begins (with it becoming harder again to hear speech in noise).

Localization mechanism

[edit]

Sound streams arriving from the left or right (the horizontal plane) are localised primarily by the small time differences of the same sound arriving at the two ears. A sound straight in front of the head is heard at the same time by both ears. A sound to the side of the head is heard approximately 0.0005 seconds later by the ear furthest away. A sound halfway to one side is heard approximately 0.0003 seconds later. This is the interaural time difference (ITD) cue and is measured by signal processing in the two central auditory pathways that begin after the cochlea and pass through the brainstem and mid-brain.[3] Some of those with spatial hearing loss are unable to process ITD (low frequency) cues.

Sound streams arriving from below the head, above the head, and over behind the head (the vertical plane) are localised again by signal processing in the central auditory pathways. The cues this time however are the notches/peaks that are added to the sound arriving at the ears by the complex shapes of the pinna. Different notches/peaks are added to sounds coming from below compared to sounds coming from above, and compared to sounds coming from behind. The most significant notches are added to sounds in the 4 kHz to 10 kHz range.[4] Some of those with spatial hearing loss are unable to process pinna related (high frequency) cues.

By the time sound stream representations reach the end of the auditory pathways brainstem inhibition processing ensures that the right pathway is solely responsible for the left ear sounds and the left pathway is solely responsible for the right ear sounds.[5] It is then the responsibility of the auditory cortex (AC) of the right hemisphere (on its own) to map the whole auditory scene. Information about the right auditory hemifield joins with the information about the left hemifield once it has passed through the corpus callosum (CC) - the brain white matter that connects homologous regions of the left and right hemispheres.[6] Some of those with spatial hearing loss are unable to integrate the auditory representations of the left and right hemifields, and consequently are unable to maintain any representation of auditory space.

An auditory space representation enables attention to be given (conscious top-down driven) to a single auditory stream. A gain mechanism can be employed involving the enhancement of the speech stream, and the suppression of any other speech streams and any noise streams.[7] An inhibition mechanism can be employed involving the variable suppression of outputs from the two cochlea.[8] Some of those with spatial hearing loss are unable to suppress unwanted cochlea output.

Those individuals with spatial hearing loss are not able to accurately perceive the directions different sound streams are coming from and their hearing is no longer 3-dimensional (3D). Sound streams from the rear may appear to come from the front instead. Sound streams from the left or right may appear to come from the front. The gain mechanism can not be used to enhance the speech stream of interest from all other sound streams. Those with spatial hearing loss need target speech to be raised by typically more than 10 dB when listening to speech in a background noise compared to those with no spatial hearing loss.[9]

Spatial hearing ability normally begins to develop in early childhood, and then continues to develop into early adulthood. After the age of 50 years spatial hearing ability begins to decline.[10] Both peripheral hearing and central auditory pathway problems can interfere with early development. With some individuals, for a range of different reasons, maturation of the two ear spatial hearing ability may simply never happen. For example, prolonged episodes of ear infections such as “glue ear” are likely to significantly hinder its development.[11]

Corpus callosum

[edit]

Many neuroscience studies have facilitated the development and refinement of a speech processing model. This model shows cooperation between the two hemispheres of the brain, with asymmetric inter-hemispheric and intrahemispheric connectivity consistent with the left hemisphere specialization for phonological processing.[12] The right hemisphere is more specialized for sound localization,[13] while auditory space representation in the brain requires the integration of information from both hemispheres.[14]

The corpus callosum (CC) is the major route of communication between the two hemispheres. At maturity it is a large mass of white matter and consists of bundles of fibres linking the white matter of the two cerebral hemispheres. Its caudal and splenium portions contain fibres that originate from the primary and second auditory cortices, and from other auditory responsive areas.[15] Transcallosal interhemispheric transfer of auditory information plays a significant role in spatial hearing functions that depend on binaural cues.[16] Various studies have shown that despite normal audiograms, children with known auditory interhemispheric transfer deficits have particular difficulty localizing sound and understanding speech in noise.[17]

The CC of the human brain is relatively slow to mature with its size continuing to increase until the fourth decade of life. From this point it then slowly begins to shrink.[18] LiSN-S SRT scores show that the ability to understand speech in noisy environments develops with age, is beginning to be adult like by 18 years and starts to decline between 40 and 50 years of age.[19]

tbd
CC density (and myelination) increases during childhood, and into early adulthood, peaking and then decreasing during the fourth decade.
tbd
Spatial Hearing Advantage (dB) continues to increase through childhood and into adulthood. It then begins to decrease again during the fourth decade.

Roles of the SOC and the MOC

[edit]

The medial olivocochlear bundle (MOC) is part of a collection of brainstem nuclei known as the superior olivary complex (SOC). The MOC innervates the outer hair cells of the cochlea and its activity is able to reduce basilar-membrane responses to sound by reducing the gain of cochlear amplification.[20]

In a quiet environment when speech from a single talker is being listened to, then the MOC efferent pathways are essentially inactive. In this case the single speech stream enters both ears and its representation ascends the two auditory pathways.[5] The stream arrives at both the right and left auditory cortices for eventual speech processing by the left hemisphere.

In a noisy environment the MOC efferent pathways are required to be active in two distinct ways. The first is an automatic response to the multiple sound streams arriving at the two ears, while the second is a top-down corticofugal attention driven response. The purpose of both is an attempt to enhance the signal to noise ratio between the speech stream being listened to and all other sound streams.[21]

The automatic response involves the MOC efferents inhibiting the output of the cochlear of the left ear. The output of the right ear is therefore dominant and only the right hemispace streams (with their direct connection to the speech processing areas of the left hemisphere) travel up the auditory pathway.[22] With children the underdeveloped Corpus Callosum (CC) is unable, in any case, to transfer auditory streams arriving (from the left ear) at the right hemisphere to the left hemisphere.[23]

With adults with a mature CC, an attention driven (conscious) decision to attend to one particular sound stream is the trigger for further MOC activity.[24] The 3D spatial representation of the multiple streams of the noisy environment (a function of the right hemisphere) enables a choice of the ear to be attended to. As a consequence, instruction may be given to the MOC efferents to inhibit the output of the right cochlear rather than the left cochlear.[8] If the speech stream being attended to is from the left hemispace it will arrive at the right hemisphere and access speech processing via the CC.

tbd
Noisy Environment: The MOC efferents automatic response is to inhibit the left ear cochlea thus favouring the sounds arriving at the right ear. This is the right ear advantage (REA).
tbd
Noisy Environment: An attention driven optional response with the MOC efferents inhibiting the right ear cochlea. The sounds arriving at the left ear are favoured.

Diagnosis

[edit]

Spatial hearing loss can be diagnosed using the Listening in Spatialized Noise – Sentences test (LiSN-S),[25] which was designed to assess the ability of children with central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) to understand speech in background noise. The LiSN-S allows audiologists to measure how well a person uses spatial (and pitch) information to understand speech in noise. Inability to use spatial information has been found to be a leading cause of CAPD in children.[1]

Test participants repeat a series of target sentences which are presented simultaneously with competing speech. The listener's speech reception threshold (SRT) for target sentences is calculated using an adaptive procedure. The targets are perceived as coming from in front of the listener whereas the distracters vary according to where they are perceived spatially (either directly in front or either side of the listener). The vocal identity of the distracters also varies (either the same as, or different from, the speaker of the target sentences).[25]

Performance on the LISN-S is evaluated by comparing listeners' performances across four listening conditions, generating two SRT measures and three "advantage" measures. The advantage measures represent the benefit in dB gained when either talker, spatial, or both talker and spatial cues are available to the listener. The use of advantage measures minimizes the influence of higher order skills on test performance.[1] This serves to control for the inevitable differences that exist between individuals in functions such as language or memory.

Dichotic listening tests can be used to measure the efficacy of the attentional control of cochlear inhibition and the inter-hemispheric transfer of auditory information. Dichotic listening performance typically increases (and the right-ear advantage decreases) with the development of the Corpus Callosum (CC), peaking before the fourth decade. During middle age and older the auditory system ages, the CC reduces in size, and dichotic listening becomes worse, primarily in the left ear.[26] Dichotic listening tests typically involve two different auditory stimuli (usually speech) presented simultaneously, one to each ear, using a set of headphones. Participants are asked to attend to one or (in a divided-attention test) both of the messages.[27]

The activity of the medial olivocochlear bundle (MOC) and its inhibition of cochlear gain can be measured using a Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission (DPOE) recording method. This involves the contralateral presentation of broadband noise and the measurement of both DPOAE amplitudes and the latency of onset of DPOAE suppression. DPOAE suppression is significantly affected by age and becomes difficult to detect by approximately 50 years of age.[28]

tbd
Spatial Hearing Advantage (dB) slowly increases through childhood and into adulthood.
tbd
The left ear disadvantage slowly decreases through childhood and into adulthood. The right ear advantage still exists as children move into early adulthood.
tbd
The amplitude of contralateral DPOAE suppression decreases with ageing.
tbd
By early adulthood the left ear disadvantage is negligible. The right ear advantage re-establishes itself from middle to old age, primarily due to the faster falling of the left ear performance.

Research

[edit]

Research has shown that PC based spatial hearing training software can help some of the children identified as failing to develop their spatial hearing skills (perhaps because of frequent bouts of otitis media with effusion).[29] Further research is needed to discover if a similar approach would help those over 60 to recover the loss of their spatial hearing. One such study showed that dichotic test scores for the left ear improved with daily training.[30] Related research into the plasticity of white-matter (see Lövdén et al. for example)[31] suggests some recovery may be possible.

Music training leads to superior understanding of speech in noise across age groups and musical experience protects against age-related degradation in neural timing.[32] Unlike speech (fast temporal information), music (pitch information) is primarily processed by areas of the brain in the right hemisphere.[33] Given that it seems likely that the right ear advantage (REA) for speech is present from birth,[22] it would follow that a left ear advantage for music is also present from birth and that MOC efferent inhibition (of the right ear) plays a similar role in creating this advantage. Does greater exposure to music increase conscious control of cochlear gain and inhibition? Further research is needed to explore the apparent ability of music to promote an enhanced capability of speech in noise recognition.

Bilateral digital hearing aids do not preserve localization cues (see, for example, Van den Bogaert et al., 2006)[34] This means that audiologists when fitting hearing aids to patients (with a mild to moderate age related loss) risk negatively impacting their spatial hearing capability. With those patients who feel that their lack of understanding of speech in background noise is their primary hearing difficulty then hearing aids may simply make their problem even worse - their spatial hearing gain will be reduced by in the region of 10 dB. Although further research is needed, there is a growing number of studies which have shown that open-fit hearing aids are better able to preserve localisation cues (see, for example, Alworth 2011)[35]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Spatial hearing loss

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Spatial hearing loss refers to the diminished capacity to localize and segregate sound sources in three-dimensional space, relying on disrupted binaural cues such as interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs), as well as monaural spectral cues from the pinna. This condition typically arises from unilateral or asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss, which impairs the brain's ability to integrate inputs from both ears, leading to errors in sound localization that can exceed 10-20 degrees compared to the 1-4 degrees in normal hearing. It affects an estimated 3% of school-age children with minimal to moderate hearing loss and is also prevalent in adults due to aging or noise exposure. Common causes include congenital anomalies, chronic otitis media with effusion, sudden sensorineural damage from viral infections or trauma, and unilateral vestibular insufficiency co-occurring with hearing loss in the same ear. In developmental cases, early-onset unilateral hearing loss during childhood can induce maladaptive plasticity in the auditory cortex, weakening the neural representation of the affected ear and potentially leading to persistent deficits even after restoration of hearing thresholds. Acquired forms often stem from noise-induced damage or ototoxic medications, which degrade high-frequency cues essential for spatial processing above 1.5 kHz. Symptoms manifest as difficulty identifying the direction of sounds, especially in reverberant or noisy settings, reduced speech understanding amid competing talkers, and challenges in segregating multiple auditory streams, such as distinguishing a conversation in a crowded room. Individuals may report a sensation of sounds originating from the better-hearing ear (a phenomenon known as binaural squelch deficiency) or increased front-back confusion, with error rates rising to 25-35% in aided listeners. In children, this can contribute to broader auditory processing disorders, delaying language development and social interactions. Diagnosis involves pure-tone audiometry to confirm asymmetric thresholds, spatial hearing questionnaires like the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire for self-reported deficits, and objective tests such as the minimal audible angle paradigm to quantify localization accuracy. Treatment strategies focus on amplification with binaural hearing aids or cochlear implants to restore some binaural cues, though conventional aids often provide limited spatial benefit and may even slightly worsen performance due to microphone distortions. Auditory training programs and multisensory rehabilitation, incorporating visual and head-movement cues, show promise in improving localization, particularly in pediatric cases where neural plasticity is higher.

Overview

Definition

Spatial hearing loss, also known as spatial processing disorder (SPD), refers to an impairment in the central auditory system's ability to utilize binaural cues—such as interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural intensity differences (IIDs)—and monaural cues, like spectral shape variations, to accurately localize sound sources in three-dimensional space. This deficit hinders the listener's capacity to segregate target sounds from competing noise, particularly in complex acoustic environments, resulting in diminished speech perception amid background interference. Unlike conductive or sensorineural hearing loss, which primarily involve reduced peripheral sensitivity to sound intensity or frequency due to mechanical or cochlear damage, spatial hearing loss centers on disrupted central processing of spatial auditory information despite normal or near-normal pure-tone thresholds. Individuals with this condition may exhibit intact basic hearing sensitivity but struggle with integrating spatial cues for everyday listening tasks. The concept of spatial hearing loss emerged within the broader framework of central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), first systematically described in the 1970s to characterize auditory deficits beyond peripheral involvement, particularly in children with listening difficulties. By the 2000s, SPD gained recognition as a distinct subtype in both pediatric and geriatric audiology, driven by advancements in diagnostic tools that isolated spatial processing deficits. A hallmark of SPD is reduced spatial release from masking (SRM), the improvement in speech reception threshold (SRT) when a target speech signal is spatially separated from a masker; normal SRM typically ranges from 5-10 dB in adults with intact hearing.

Symptoms and Impact

Individuals with spatial hearing loss experience primary symptoms centered on impaired auditory spatial perception. A core symptom is difficulty localizing sound sources, such as failing to accurately determine the direction of a speaker or environmental noises, due to disrupted binaural cues like interaural time and level differences. Another prominent symptom is reduced speech understanding in noisy or reverberant environments, where individuals struggle to segregate target speech from competing sounds, often relying on suboptimal monaural cues. This is compounded by increased listening effort, leading to auditory fatigue during prolonged exposure to complex acoustic scenes. These symptoms profoundly affect daily life, posing safety risks such as inability to detect the direction of traffic sounds, alarms, or approaching hazards, which can heighten vulnerability in dynamic environments. Socially, challenges in following group conversations contribute to withdrawal and isolation, particularly in multi-talker settings like restaurants or meetings. In educational and professional contexts, children with spatial hearing loss often face learning delays and poorer classroom performance due to difficulties understanding speech amid background noise, while adults encounter reduced productivity in noisy workplaces. For instance, spatial processing disorder has a prevalence of about 7% in regional school-aged children and 23% in remote Indigenous communities, with approximately 51% of identified cases linked to a history of recurrent ear infections. The psychological toll includes frustration and anxiety from persistent communication failures, eroding confidence in auditory tasks and exacerbating social isolation, especially among adults over 70 where hearing loss correlates with heightened loneliness. In central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) cases, spatial deficits are prevalent in about 32% of diagnoses, underscoring their role in broader quality-of-life impairments.

Pathophysiology

Normal Sound Localization Mechanisms

Sound localization in humans relies on a combination of acoustic cues processed by the to determine the position of sound sources in . These cues are broadly categorized into binaural and monaural types, which together enable precise azimuthal, elevational, and distance judgments. Binaural cues arise from the separation of the ears, while monaural cues stem from interactions between the sound wave and individual ear structures. The underlying neural mechanisms integrate these cues through dedicated brainstem and cortical pathways, achieving high accuracy in typical hearing. Binaural cues exploit the physical differences between the two ears due to the head's dimensions. The primary cues are interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs). ITDs occur when a sound arrives at the near ear slightly earlier than the far ear, with the maximum ITD determined by the head's diameter and the speed of sound, approximately calculated as: ITDmax⁡≈dc\text{ITD}_{\max} \approx \frac{d}{c} where dd is the interaural distance (about 0.21 m in adults) and cc is the speed of sound (343 m/s), yielding 0.6–0.7 ms. This cue is most effective for low-frequency sounds below 1.5 kHz, as phase ambiguities arise at higher frequencies. ITDs are primarily processed in the medial superior olive (MSO) of the superior olivary complex (SOC) in the brainstem, where coincidence-detection neurons fire when inputs from both ears align temporally. In contrast, ILDs result from the head's acoustic shadow attenuating sound intensity at the far ear, particularly for high-frequency components above 1.5 kHz where wavelengths are shorter than the head's size. The magnitude of ILD can be approximated as: ILD≈20log⁡10(InearIfar)\text{ILD} \approx 20 \log_{10} \left( \frac{I_{\text{near}}}{I_{\text{far}}} \right) in decibels, with typical maximum values around 20 dB for lateral sources. ILDs are encoded in the lateral superior olive (LSO), where excitatory input from the near-ear cochlear nucleus converges with inhibitory input from the far ear via the medial nucleus of the trapezoid body. These cues complement each other, with ITD dominating low frequencies and ILD high frequencies, as described by the duplex theory. Monaural cues provide information about elevation and distance independently for each ear, primarily through spectral shaping by the pinna and head. The pinna acts as an acoustic filter, introducing direction-dependent spectral notches, especially in the 4–10 kHz range, which are critical for encoding elevation; for example, notches shift upward in frequency for higher elevations. These spectral features are captured in the head-related transfer function (HRTF), which describes the filtering of sound based on source azimuth, elevation, and distance relative to the listener's head and torso. HRTFs enable disambiguation of front-back and up-down confusions that binaural cues alone cannot resolve, with distance cues arising from high-frequency attenuation and interaural intensity gradients over larger separations. The neural pathway for sound localization begins at the cochlea, where hair cells transduce mechanical vibrations into action potentials along the auditory nerve. These signals project to the cochlear nuclei, then to the SOC in the brainstem for initial binaural processing in the MSO and LSO. Ascending fibers from the SOC travel via the lateral lemniscus to the inferior colliculus in the midbrain, which integrates monaural spectral cues and refines spatial maps. From there, projections reach the medial geniculate nucleus of the thalamus and terminate in the primary auditory cortex, particularly in the core and belt regions, where higher-order spatial representations emerge. Interhemispheric integration of these cues, essential for midline localization, occurs via the corpus callosum connecting homologous auditory areas. Developmentally, these mechanisms mature progressively in humans. Basic ITD sensitivity emerges within the first few months of , but full integration of binaural and monaural cues, including accurate , is not achieved until around ages 5–7 years, coinciding with pinna growth and neural refinement. Localization peaks in young adulthood, reflecting optimized cue and minimal sensory degradation.

Impairments in Spatial Processing

In spatial hearing loss, normal binaural mechanisms, such as interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs), are disrupted, leading to reduced sensitivity to these cues. Dysfunction in the (SOC), particularly the medial superior olive (MSO), impairs the initial of ITDs and ILDs due to degraded neural phase-locking and detection, resulting in blurred auditory images where sound sources appear less distinct and localized. This breakdown manifests as elevated just-noticeable differences (JNDs) for ITDs (often exceeding 50 μs compared to the normal 10–40 μs range) and ILDs (≥2 dB versus the typical 0.5–2.0 dB), compromising horizontal plane localization accuracy. Interhemispheric transfer deficits further exacerbate spatial impairments by hindering the integration of left-right auditory cues across hemispheres. Lesions or atrophy in the corpus callosum disrupt this bilateral synthesis, leading to contralateral localization errors where sounds are misperceived as originating from the opposite side or midline. The corpus callosum plays a key role in synthesizing binaural information for precise spatial mapping, and its compromise results in poorer performance on tasks requiring cue integration, such as dichotic listening or azimuth judgments. Monaural cue degradation compounds these issues, particularly affecting vertical plane localization. Auditory cortical reorganization alters in the intact or dominant , reducing the reliability of (HRTF) cues like pinna notches, which are essential for and front-back . This leads to heightened reliance on degraded monaural spectra, increasing localization errors in the vertical by up to – degrees on . The medial olivocochlear (MOC) , which provides efferent feedback to enhance signal-to-noise ratios via outer suppression, also fails to adequately modulate cochlear gain in noisy environments, further blurring spatial percepts. Quantitatively, these disruptions are evident in reduced spatial release from masking (SRM), where affected individuals exhibit benefits of less than 3 dB compared to the 8–10 dB typical in normal hearing, reflecting diminished ability to segregate target speech from spatialized noise. Localization error rates can reach up to 90 degrees in azimuth, particularly at extreme positions (±90°), with quadrant errors (deviations ≥90°) occurring in a significant proportion of trials for those with bilateral or asymmetric losses.

Causes and Risk Factors

Central Auditory Processing Disorders

Central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) encompasses deficits in the neural processing of auditory information in the central nervous system, despite normal peripheral hearing, and spatial processing deficits represent one of its four core subtypes alongside temporal processing, dichotic listening, and monaural low-redundancy challenges. Spatial deficits specifically impair the ability to localize sounds, separate signals from background noise using spatial cues, and benefit from binaural interactions, often manifesting in children as difficulties understanding speech in noisy environments. In pediatric populations, CAPD has an estimated of 2-5% among school-aged children, with a notably higher in those with a of recurrent otitis media with effusion (OME), where maladaptive changes in central pathways may persist even after resolution of the effusion. Recurrent OME during early childhood disrupts normal auditory input, leading to maladaptive changes in central pathways that persist even after resolution of the effusion. Unique mechanisms in developmental CAPD include immature myelination along auditory pathways, which delays efficient neural transmission and integration. Children with spatial processing deficits in CAPD often demonstrate worse speech reception thresholds (SRTs) on spatial noise tests compared to typically developing peers, reflecting reduced spatial release from masking. These auditory challenges are frequently linked to delays in reading and language development, as spatial processing difficulties hinder phonological awareness and verbal comprehension essential for literacy acquisition. Recent estimates indicate prevalence variability due to diagnostic criteria, ranging from 0.2% to 6.2%, and associations with comorbidities like ADHD in up to 30% of cases. An early intervention window exists before age 7, when neural plasticity in the auditory system remains high, allowing for more effective remediation of these deficits during this critical developmental period.

Aging and Neurological Conditions

Age-related spatial hearing loss often arises from the interplay between presbycusis, characterized by peripheral cochlear degeneration, and concurrent central auditory processing declines that impair binaural cue integration for . In presbycusis, synaptic loss and axonal degeneration in brainstem structures like the disrupt interaural time differences (ITD) and interaural level differences essential for spatial . Central presbycusis further exacerbates these deficits through age-related changes in temporal and binaural , independent of peripheral hearing thresholds, leading to poorer speech understanding in and reduced accuracy. Approximately 70-83% of adults over 70 experience some form of hearing loss, with spatial impairments becoming prevalent due to these combined peripheral and central effects. Structural changes in the , such as age-related , contribute to spatial hearing deficits by impairing interhemispheric transfer of auditory , resulting in slower and increased biases in tasks. This , more pronounced in anterior regions, hinders the integration of binaural cues across hemispheres, age-related declines in ITD sensitivity, where thresholds worsen progressively with advancing age. Cumulative exposure accelerates these changes by inducing peripheral that interacts with central vulnerabilities, while vascular diseases like and elevate the of through impaired cochlear flow, with ratios up to 2.23 for individuals with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Neurological conditions can precipitate acute or progressive spatial hearing loss through targeted lesions. Ischemic affecting the , , or binaural , leading to distorted sound lateralization and reduced spatial accuracy, particularly with contralateral stimuli. Tumors in the similarly impair spatial localization by damaging cortical areas responsible for integrating binaural cues, resulting in deficits observable even after unilateral excision. In multiple sclerosis, demyelination along auditory pathways compromises ITD processing, with up to 76% of patients showing abnormal sound localization detection and reduced spatial release from masking compared to controls. Traumatic brain injury often disrupts medial olivocochlear (MOC) feedback mechanisms, with 87% of affected individuals exhibiting reduced or absent efferent suppression, leading to central auditory processing vulnerabilities that mimic or exacerbate spatial deficits. Unilateral hearing loss, frequently stemming from cochlear asymmetry due to aging or neurological damage, induces head shadow effects that attenuate high-frequency sounds on the impaired side, severely limiting binaural summation and localization precision while increasing reliance on monaural cues. These pathological etiologies highlight the vulnerability of spatial hearing to both degenerative and lesion-based disruptions in adults.

Diagnosis

Clinical Assessment

The clinical assessment of spatial hearing loss begins with a comprehensive patient history to identify symptoms and potential risk factors. Clinicians inquire about difficulties in sound localization, such as challenges in identifying the direction or distance of sounds in everyday environments, reduced tolerance to noisy settings, and impacts on communication or daily activities. Risk factors explored include a history of recurrent otitis media, neurological events like strokes or head trauma, and developmental milestones related to auditory processing. Basic audiological evaluations are conducted to characterize peripheral hearing status. Pure-tone audiometry measures hearing thresholds across frequencies to identify any asymmetry, while speech-in-quiet tests assess word recognition abilities under controlled conditions, helping to evaluate the extent of hearing impairment and its impact on spatial processing. These tests provide foundational data for cases involving unilateral or asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss, a common cause of spatial hearing deficits. Behavioral observations supplement formal testing through informal clinic-based activities and self-report tools. Informal assessments may involve simple tasks, such as asking to point toward or identify the source of sounds presented from different directions in the testing , to gauge real-time spatial . Questionnaires like the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) quantify self-reported deficits, with its spatial subscale evaluating abilities in judging sound location, distance, and movement in complex auditory scenes. Scores from such tools highlight functional impacts, such as struggles conversations or navigating noisy spaces. A multidisciplinary approach ensures accurate by integrating expertise from audiologists, who lead auditory evaluations, and neurologists, who assess for underlying involvement. This facilitates differential , distinguishing spatial hearing loss from conditions like , which affects comprehension, or cognitive decline, which may mimic auditory-spatial challenges through broader executive function deficits. Guidelines from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American of (AAA) recommend initiating comprehensive assessment for suspected central (CAPD), including spatial components, at age 7 or older, when the central auditory has sufficiently matured for reliable behavioral testing. Earlier screening is advised for at-risk children, with monitoring to timely intervention, particularly in cases of suspected .

Specific Tests

The Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences (LiSN-S) test is a standardized behavioral assessment that evaluates speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for sentences presented in competing babble noise, incorporating spatial cues (target at 0° azimuth, maskers at ±90°), pitch (talker voice differences), and combined cues under headphones using head-related transfer functions to simulate a three-dimensional auditory environment. In typically developing children aged 6-11 years, the spatial advantage—the improvement in SRT when spatial separation is added—averages 11.7 dB (SD 1.73), reflecting effective use of interaural time and level differences for stream segregation. Spatial processing disorder is indicated if the spatial advantage falls more than 2 standard deviations below age-adjusted norms, corresponding to reduced benefit from binaural cues. Other behavioral tests quantify localization acuity and spatial release from masking (SRM). The minimum audible angle (MAA) measures the smallest detectable angular separation between two sound sources in the horizontal plane, with normal thresholds of 1-4° in young adults, indicating precise binaural processing for sound localization. SRM tests, often conducted in virtual acoustics via headphones with individualized head-related transfer functions, assess improvements in speech intelligibility when target and masker sounds are spatially separated (e.g., 0° vs. ±90°); normal-hearing listeners typically show 6-12 dB SRM, which is diminished in spatial hearing impairments. The dichotic digits test evaluates interhemispheric transfer by presenting digit pairs simultaneously to each ear, scoring right- or left-ear advantages to detect asymmetries in central auditory processing, with normal right-ear dominance reflecting left-hemisphere language lateralization and corpus callosum integrity. Neuroimaging and electrophysiological measures provide objective correlates of spatial deficits. (MRI), including tensor imaging, visualizes , where higher in prefrontal and parietal regions predicts better spatial cue utilization for speech-in-noise ; reduced is associated with age-related spatial hearing decline. () can reveal altered in auditory pathways, including the (SOC), during binaural tasks, though SOC visualization requires high-resolution sequences to its brainstem . () testing with interaural time difference () clicks assesses brainstem binaural sensitivity via the binaural interaction component, derived by subtracting summed monaural responses from the dichotic response; normal tuning sharpens by early adulthood, with broader tuning indicating SOC or lateral superior impairments in spatial . Diagnosis of spatial disorder (SPD) relies on composite scoring across tests, with SPD confirmed if spatial cue benefit (e.g., SRM or LiSN-S advantage) is less than approximately 2 standard deviations below norms. LiSN-S and similar tests exhibit high test-retest reliability, with coefficients exceeding 0.8 and minimal differences (0.5-1.2 dB) on re-administration. Pediatric adaptations enhance accessibility for children. Game-based versions, such as Sound Storm, deliver spatial training and screening in an interactive format mimicking LiSN-S principles, using narrative-driven tasks to assess and remediate binaural cue processing in noisy virtual environments for ages 6 and up.

Management and Treatment

Auditory Training Programs

Auditory training programs for spatial hearing loss target deficits in binaural processing, particularly spatial release from masking (SRM), through structured exercises that leverage interaural time differences (ITD) and interaural level differences (ILD) cues. One prominent deficit-specific intervention is the LiSN & Learn software, which employs adaptive spatialized sentences presented in a virtual 3D auditory environment to train children with spatial processing disorder (SPD). This program focuses on improving the ability to separate target speech from competing noise by emphasizing spatial and binaural cues, with training involving repeated exposure to dichotically presented stimuli where the target is fixed at 0° azimuth and distractors vary in location. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of LiSN & Learn, with children completing approximately 60 sessions over 12 weeks (15-20 minutes daily, 5 days per week) showing average improvements of 10.9 dB in speech reception thresholds (SRT) for spatial advantage measures. These gains were specific to the training, outperforming non-spatial controls like Earobics, and correlated with enhanced real-world listening as reported by parent questionnaires. Other programs, such as Sound Storm (an app-based adaptation of LiSN & Learn), incorporate dichotic and spatial tasks tailored for diverse populations, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, where completion of at least 40% of the protocol led to significant noise-to-signal ratio improvements and remediation of SPD in 78% of retested participants. The underlying mechanisms of these programs rely on neuroplasticity, induced by repeated exposure to ITD and ILD cues, which strengthens neural representations of spatial auditory scenes. Pre- and post-training functional MRI (fMRI) studies reveal cortical reorganization, including increased activation in the superior temporal gyrus, parietal lobule, and frontal regions associated with spatial attention and processing, alongside reduced activity in areas linked to effortful listening. Efficacy varies by age: in children with SPD, 70-80% show clinically meaningful improvements in SRM and speech-in-noise perception, while adults experience smaller gains of 2-4 dB in SRT after 16 sessions (40 minutes, twice weekly). Recent developments include (VR)-based programs, which as of have demonstrated improvements in auditory spatial for populations with and users. Typical protocols involve 30-60 minute sessions conducted 3-5 times per week, often in clinical or settings, with monitored via adaptive difficulty levels to ensure . By the , home-based apps like Storm have emerged, enabling remote delivery and flexible scheduling while maintaining clinical oversight through tracking, thus broadening access to spatial interventions.

Assistive Devices and Rehabilitation

Bilateral fittings, particularly those incorporating directional , enhance spatial hearing by improving the detection of interaural time and level differences, which are critical for . Directional in these devices focus on sounds from the front while attenuating from other directions, thereby supporting better speech understanding in noisy environments and reducing the spatial demands on the listener. Open-fit designs, which leave the partially unobstructed, preserve pinna cues essential for and front-back , leading to improved localization accuracy compared to closed fittings that can distort these spectral features. Assistive listening devices such as frequency-modulated (FM) or digitally modulated (DM) systems provide spatial separation benefits by transmitting targeted audio signals directly to the listener, minimizing the impact of background noise and distance on spatial processing. These systems improve signal-to-noise ratios by up to 15-20 dB in challenging acoustic environments, aiding individuals with spatial hearing deficits to better segregate sounds based on location. For unilateral cases, bone-anchored hearing aids route sound from the impaired side to the better-hearing ear via bone conduction, potentially aiding in some aspects of hearing but with limited evidence for improving localization performance. Rehabilitation strategies emphasize environmental modifications, such as installing acoustic panels or carpets to reduce reverberation, which otherwise smears spatial cues and exacerbates localization errors in individuals with spatial hearing loss. Counseling plays a key role by educating users on coping strategies, including optimal positioning in social settings to leverage remaining spatial abilities and advocating for quieter environments. These approaches are often combined with speech therapy for central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), where therapists target deficits in spatial stream segregation to improve overall auditory scene analysis. Clinical outcomes from assistive devices and rehabilitation show improvements in functional performance for daily tasks like navigating crowded spaces or conversing in groups, as measured by self-reported scales such as the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire. However, elderly individuals may experience persistent challenges due to added cognitive load from device management and environmental adaptation. The American Academy of Audiology recommends verifying hearing aid fittings with real-ear measures to ensure appropriate amplification that supports spatial performance, including probe microphone assessments to match prescriptive targets for directional and binaural processing.

Research Directions

Current Studies on Interventions

Recent clinical trials have investigated the efficacy of auditory training programs for spatial hearing loss, particularly focusing on binaural processing deficits. A foundational 2011 review in Trends in Amplification established the framework for spatial processing disorder (SPD) as a key contributor to difficulties in understanding speech in noise among older adults, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions to enhance spatial cues. Building on this, studies from 2011 demonstrated that the LiSN & Learn software, designed to remediate binaural spatial processing deficits in children with normal peripheral hearing, significantly improved performance on spatialized speech-in-noise tasks, with participants showing enhanced ability to segregate target speech from competing signals. Further evidence supports its application in pediatric SPD, with post-training assessments revealing potential sustained improvements in real-world listening abilities. In adults, studies on spatial auditory training have reported modest enhancements in spatial release from masking (SRM), highlighting potential benefits for hearing aid users despite variable outcomes. Music-based interventions have emerged as a promising approach in the , leveraging cortical plasticity to bolster spatial hearing functions. indicates that long-term enhances medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferent feedback, which modulates cochlear amplification and improves suppression, leading to better speech-in- perception. For instance, musicians exhibit stronger MOC strength compared to non-musicians, correlating with reduced age-related declines in auditory . Cross-sectional and studies from this link musical activities to speech-in-noise benefits of 2-5 dB, attributed to strengthened auditory-motor integration and selective attention networks in the cortex. A 2023 meta-analysis of music in populations with hearing challenges, including those with central auditory deficits, confirmed superior outcomes over non-musical controls in challenging acoustic environments, underscoring its role in promoting neural reserve. A 2024 systematic review and of interventions for (APD), which encompasses spatial hearing impairments, affirmed that programs outperform in improving speech intelligibility, though effect sizes were moderate due to methodological constraints. Despite these advances, current studies face notable limitations, including small sample sizes in adult cohorts—often under 30 participants—which reduce statistical power and generalizability. Additionally, cultural biases in spatial hearing assessments, such as reliance on Western-centric linguistic stimuli, may underestimate deficits or skew results in non-Western populations, necessitating more inclusive test adaptations.

Emerging Findings and Gaps

Recent studies have explored (VR)-based for spatial hearing deficits using immersive () simulations. A 2024 investigation with normal-hearing participants simulating asymmetric demonstrated that interactive reaching tasks in VR reduced sound localization errors from 12.7° to 6.0° over blocks, outperforming pointing or naming methods and promoting adaptive head movements for sustained benefits. As of 2025, VR applications have expanded to for spatial hearing in children and young with bilateral cochlear implants, showing improvements in localization and segregation. Genetic research has begun uncovering polygenic influences on central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), including spatial processing components. A 2023 polygenic risk score analysis of speech-in- deficits, a key feature of CAPD, identified shared genetic factors with hearing thresholds in young adults, suggesting heritability contributes to variance in such auditory processing challenges. Despite these advances, significant research gaps persist in spatial hearing loss. Intervention trials targeting adults over 60 years old represent only about 20% of studies, limiting evidence on age-specific rehabilitation efficacy amid rising prevalence in this demographic. Spatial hearing impairments remain understudied in non-English speakers, with a notable lack of validated assessment tools beyond English-language populations, hindering global applicability. Furthermore, the long-term impacts of music exposure on medial olivocochlear (MOC) system function and cochlear gain reduction are unclear, as existing data primarily focus on short-term efferent robustness in musicians without addressing chronic spatial hearing outcomes. Innovations in hearing aids show promise for addressing spatial deficits. As of 2025, AI-adjusted beamforming algorithms in hearing aids enhance interaural cues in dynamic environments, such as tracking moving talkers, improving spatial processing for users. A brain-inspired spatial tuning model further isolates target sounds amid noise, improving cocktail-party listening scenarios relevant to spatial hearing loss. Broader needs include longitudinal investigations into post-otitis media with (OME) recovery of spatial hearing. Recent analyses indicate that chronic pediatric OME may lead to persistent central auditory and spatial deficits even after resolution, underscoring the value of extended follow-up studies. Integration of spatial hearing with vestibular disorders is also essential, as unilateral audio-vestibular insufficiency impairs localization , yet combined therapeutic approaches remain underexplored. Looking ahead, holds potential for treating auditory neuropathies linked to myelination deficits by the . Advances in vectors target inner ear synaptopathies, with preclinical models showing restored auditory function, paving the way for clinical in hereditary .

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6341410/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3791412/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10188835/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2723797/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4040826/
  6. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.22.10.6
  7. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3322&context=gradschool_dissertations
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3078033/
  9. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1721226115
  10. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/4/1010
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8527588/
  12. https://www.phonakpro.com/content/dam/phonakpro/gc_hq/en/events/2012/advances_in_audiology_lasvegas/Dillon_H_Spatial_Processing_Disorder_in_children.pdf
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8292986/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4910542/
  15. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physrev.00026.2009
  16. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1408073/full
  17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12717598/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4034511/
  19. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37537-z
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532311/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016501730700135X
  22. https://bhsl.waisman.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/114/2017/03/pub_1997LitovskyAshmeadChapterinBinauralAndSpatialHearing.pdf
  23. https://www.cjslpa.ca/download.php?file=/1990_JSLPA_Vol_14/No_04_1-82/Morrongiello_Gotowiec_JSLPA_1990.pdf
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8017161/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7292771/
  26. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/570303
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8285664/
  28. https://bhsl.waisman.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/114/2017/03/pub_2012MisurelliLitovskyJAcoustSocAm.pdf
  29. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/146/3/1732/993896/On-the-limitations-of-sound-localization-with
  30. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00006
  31. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/central-auditory-processing-disorder/
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10634468/
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444626301000305
  34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK587357/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3714994/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4910564/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4630948/
  38. https://hearingreview.com/hearing-loss/hearing-disorders/apd/letter-advocating-earlier-auditory-processing-evaluations-in-children
  39. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00125/full
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5898229/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763424004512
  42. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/135/1/342/564647/The-effects-of-age-and-hearing-loss-on-interaural
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9886989/
  44. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.1022354/full
  45. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/16/6321
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945222003367
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7483880_Dysfunction_of_the_Auditory_Efferent_System_in_Patients_with_Traumatic_Brain_Injuries_with_Tinnitus_and_Hyperacusis
  48. https://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/CAPD%20Guidelines%208-2010.pdf_539952af956c79.73897613.pdf
  49. https://www.ooaq.qc.ca/media/qf4ar4jk/canadian_guidelines_en.pdf
  50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK580531/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5593096/
  52. https://childrens.dartmouth-health.org/audiology/hearing-tests
  53. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/pdf/10.1044/cicsd_35_F_143
  54. https://www.phonak.com/content/dam/phonak/en/evidence-library/journal-article/The_Listening_in_Spatialized_Noise_Sentences_Test_LISN_S_Comparison_to_the_Prototype_LISN_and_Results.pdf
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322794849_Remediation_of_spatial_processing_disorder_SPD
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16103645/
  57. https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SPATIAL-RELEASE-FROM-MASKING-Ruth-Y.-Litovsky.pdf
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6949479/
  59. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003337
  60. https://www.soundstorm.app/
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32679432/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12191560/
  63. https://doi.org/10.21848/asr.210017
  64. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2024.1491954/full
  65. https://journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/fulltext/2023/01000/intensive_training_of_spatial_hearing_promotes.7.aspx
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3693091/
  67. https://hearingreview.com/hearing-products/hearing-aids/directionality-in-hearing-aids-a-progress-report
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4280762/
  69. https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/why-fm-dm-12087
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5821302/
  71. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/1558015
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7295162/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5802987/
  74. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/pdf/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00252
  75. https://www.audiology.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/PractGuidelineAdultsPatientsWithSNHL.pdf
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22212767/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9010026/
  78. https://www.mdpi.com/2039-4349/13/1/7
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256330887_Function_and_plasticity_of_the_medial_olivocochlear_system_in_musicians_A_review
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8632477/
  81. https://www.ejao.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.7874/jao.2023.00087
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11224551/
  83. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/13/2/400
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8816982/
  85. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51892-0
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386436351_Virtual_reality_games_for_spatial_hearing_training_in_children_and_young_people_with_bilateral_cochlear_implants_the_Both_Ears_BEARS_approach
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10695896/
  88. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/153/1/316/2873491/Development-and-validation-of-a-Spanish-language
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9844302/
  90. https://www.miracle-ear.com/blog-news/2025-hearing-aids-trends
  91. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44172-025-00414-5
  92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40834816/
  93. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/audiology-and-otology/articles/10.3389/fauot.2024.1423853/full
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.