EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 10 (2026) Acta Acust., 10 (2026) 11 References
Issue
Acta Acust.
Volume 10, 2026
Topical Issue - Spatial and binaural hearing: From neural processes to applications
Article Number 11
Number of page(s) 16
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2026011
Published online 25 February 2026
  1. R. McGarrigle, K.J. Munro, P. Dawes, A.J. Stewart, D.R. Moore, J.G. Barry, S. Amitay: Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A british society of audiology cognition in hearing special interest group “white paper”. International Journal of Audiology 53, 7 (2014) 433–445. [Google Scholar]
  2. M.K. Pichora-Fuller, S.E. Kramer, M.A. Eckert, B. Edwards, B.W.Y. Hornsby, L.E. Humes, U. Lemke, T. Lunner, M. Matthen, C.L. Mackersie, G. Naylor: Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing 37 (2016) 5S–27S. [Google Scholar]
  3. J. Obleser, M. Wöstmann, N. Hellbernd, A. Wilsch, B. Maess: Adverse listening conditions and memory load drive a common alpha oscillatory network. Journal of Neuroscience 32, 36 (2012) 12376–12383. [Google Scholar]
  4. C. Bernarding, D.J. Strauss, R. Hannemann, H. Seidler, F.I. Corona-Strauss: Neural correlates of listening effort related factors: influence of age and hearing impairment. Brain Research Bulletin 91 (2013) 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  5. S.E. Kramer, T.S. Kapteyn, J.M. Festen, D.J. Kuik: Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Audiology 36, 3 (1997) 155–164. [Google Scholar]
  6. A.A. Zekveld, S.E. Kramer, J.M. Festen: Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear and Hearing 31, 4 (2010) 480–490. [Google Scholar]
  7. C.L. Mackersie, H. Cones: Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 22, 2 (2011) 113–122. [Google Scholar]
  8. S.G. Hart, L.E. Staveland: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research, in: Advances in Psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 1988, pp. 139–183. [Google Scholar]
  9. S. Gatehouse, W. Noble: The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology 43, 2 (2004) 85–99. [Google Scholar]
  10. H. Luts, K. Eneman, J. Wouters, M. Schulte, M. Vormann, M. Buechler, N. Dillier, R. Houben, W.A. Dreschler, M. Froehlich, H. Puder: Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 127, 3 (2010) 1491–1505. [Google Scholar]
  11. M. Krueger, M. Schulte, T. Brand, I. Holube: Development of an adaptive scaling method for subjective listening effort. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 141, 6 (2017) 4680–4693. [Google Scholar]
  12. P.A. Gosselin, J.-P. Gagné: Use of a dual-task paradigm to measure listening effort. Inscription au Répertoire 34, 1 (2010) 43. [Google Scholar]
  13. J. Johnson, J. Xu, R. Cox, P. Pendergraft: A comparison of two methods for measuring listening effort as part of an audiologic test battery. American Journal of Audiology 24, 3 (2015) 419–431. [Google Scholar]
  14. A.A. Zekveld, S.E. Kramer: Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 51, 3 (2014) 277–284. [Google Scholar]
  15. B. Ohlenforst, D. Wendt, S.E. Kramer, G. Naylor, A.A. Zekveld, T. Lunner: Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response. Hearing Research 365 (2018) 90–99. [Google Scholar]
  16. D. Wendt, T. Koelewijn, P. Książek, S.E. Kramer, T. Lunner: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test. Hearing Research 369 (2018) 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  17. J. Rennies, H. Schepker, I. Holube, B. Kollmeier: Listening effort and speech intelligibility in listening situations affected by noise and reverberation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136, 5 (2014) 2642–2653. [Google Scholar]
  18. T.M. Moore, E.M. Picou: A potential bias in subjective ratings of mental effort. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 61, 9 (2018) 2405–2421. [Google Scholar]
  19. I.M. Wiggins, J.E. Stacey, G. Naylor, G.H. Saunders: Relationships between subjective and objective measures of listening accuracy and effort in an online speech-in-noise study. Ear and Hearing (2025) 10–1097. [Google Scholar]
  20. J. Rennies, G. Kidd: Benefit of binaural listening as revealed by speech intelligibility and listening effort. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144, 4 (2018) 2147–2159. [Google Scholar]
  21. J.F. Culling, M. Lavandier: Binaural unmasking and spatial release from masking, in: Binaural Hearing: With 93 Illustrations. Springer, 2021, pp. 209–241. [Google Scholar]
  22. R. Beutelmann, T. Brand: Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120, 1 (2006) 331–342. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. R. Beutelmann, T. Brand, B. Kollmeier: Revision, extension, and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 127, 4 (2010) 2479–2497. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. N.I. Durlach: Equalization and cancellation theory of binaural masking-level differences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 8 (1963) 1206–1218. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. ANSI ANSI: S3. 5-1997, Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. Vol. 19. American National Standards Institute, New York, 1997, 90–119. [Google Scholar]
  26. C.F. Hauth, S.C. Berning, B. Kollmeier, T. Brand: Modeling binaural unmasking of speech using a blind binaural processing stage. Trends in Hearing 24 (2020) 2331216520975630. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. S. Röttges, C.F. Hauth, J. Rennies, T. Brand: Using a blind EC mechanism for modelling the interaction between binaural and temporal speech processing. Acta Acustica 6 (2022) 21. [Google Scholar]
  28. A.H. Andersen, J.M. de Haan, Z.-H. Tan, J. Jensen: A non-intrusive short-time objective intelligibility measure, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2017, pp. 5085–5089. [Google Scholar]
  29. J. Rennies, S. Röttges, R. Huber, C.F. Hauth, T. Brand: A joint framework for blind prediction of binaural speech intelligibility and perceived listening effort. Hearing Research 426 (2022) 108598. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. R. Huber, A. Pusch, N. Moritz, J. Rennies, H. Schepker, B.T. Meyer: Objective assessment of a speech enhancement scheme with an automatic speech recognition-based system, in: Speech Communication; 13th ITG-Symposium. VDE, 2018, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  31. R. Huber, M. Krüger, B.T. Meyer: Single-ended prediction of listening effort using deep neural networks. Hearing Research 359 (2018) 40–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. R. Huber, H. Baumgartner, S. Goetze, J. Rennies: ASR-based, single-ended modeling of listening effort? A tool for TV sound engineers, in: Forum Acusticum, 2020, pp. 2441–2445. [Google Scholar]
  33. S. Kuwano, S. Namba: Continuous judgment of level-fluctuating sounds and the relationship between overall loudness and instantaneous loudness. Psychological Research 47, 1 (1985) 27–37. [Google Scholar]
  34. S. Namba, S. Kuwano, H. Fastl: Loudness of road traffic noise using the method of continuous judgment by category, in: Noise as a Public Health Problem. Swedish Council for Building Research, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  35. H. Fastl, S. Kuwano, S. Namba: Assessing the railway bonus in laboratory studies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan (E), 17, 3 (1996) 139–148. [Google Scholar]
  36. M. Hansen, B. Kollmeier: Continuous assessment of time-varying speech quality. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106, 5 (1999) 2888–2899. [Google Scholar]
  37. V. Hohmann: Frequency analysis and synthesis using a gammatone filterbank. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 88, 3 (2002) 433–442. [Google Scholar]
  38. C.F. Hauth, T. Brand: Modeling sluggishness in binaural unmasking of speech for maskers with time-varying interaural phase differences. Trends in Hearing 22 (2018) 2331216517753547. [Google Scholar]
  39. T.H. Falk, C. Zheng, W.-Y. Chan: A non-intrusive quality and intelligibility measure of reverberant and dereverberated speech. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 18, 7 (2010) 1766–1774. [Google Scholar]
  40. S. Kriman, S. Beliaev, B. Ginsburg, J. Huang, O. Kuchaiev, V. Lavrukhin, R. Leary, J. Li, Y. Zhang: Quartznet: deep automatic speech recognition with 1d time-channel separable convolutions, in: ICASSP 2020 – 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2020, pp. 6124–6128. [Google Scholar]
  41. R. Ardila, M. Branson, K. Davis, M. Henretty, M. Kohler, J. Meyer, R. Morais, L. Saunders, F.M. Tyers, G. Weber: Common voice: a massively-multilingual speech corpus, in: Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2020, 4218–4222. [Google Scholar]
  42. Beijing Haitian Ruisheng Science Technology Ltd.: Speechocean: King-ASR-187, n.d. https://en.speechocean.com/datacenter/details/1557.html. Accessed: 2022-01-13. [Google Scholar]
  43. BBC: BBC sound effects, 2020. http://bbcsfx.acropolis.org.uk/. Accessed: 2025-04-29. [Google Scholar]
  44. C.K.A. Reddy, V. Gopal, R. Cutler, E. Beyrami, R. Cheng, H. Dubey, S. Matusevych, R. Aichner, A. Aazami, S. Braun, P. Rana: The interspeech 2020 deep noise suppression challenge: datasets, subjective testing framework, and challenge results, in: INTERSPEECH, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  45. D. Snyder, G. Chen, D. Povey: MUSAN: a music, speech, and noise corpus. Preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08484, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  46. ITU: Objective measurement of active speech level, international telecommunications union (ITU-T) recommendation, 2011, p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  47. T. Ko, V. Peddinti, D. Povey, M.L. Seltzer, S. Khudanpur: A study on data augmentation of reverberant speech for robust speech recognition, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2017, pp. 5220–5224. [Google Scholar]
  48. D.P. Kingma, J. Ba: Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. Preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  49. G. Grimm, J. Luberadzka, V. Hohmann: A toolbox for rendering virtual acoustic environments in the context of audiology. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 105, 3 (2019) 566–578. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. OHRKA: Ohrka.de – Free audio adventures for children, 2012. https://www.ohrka.de/hoeren/abenteuerlich-lustig/zwerg-nase. Accessed: 2025-04-29. [Google Scholar]
  51. B. Mirkovic, M.G. Bleichner, M. De Vos, S. Debener: Target speaker detection with concealed EEG around the ear. Frontiers in Neuroscience 10 (2016) 349. [Google Scholar]
  52. W.A. Dreschler, H. Verschuure, C. Ludvigsen, S. Westermann: ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology 40, 3 (2001) 148–157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. E. Hering: Treasures from the German Fairy Tale Treasury. BUCHFUNK Verlag, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  54. A.R. Smith: Color gamut transform pairs. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics 12, 3 (1978) 12–19. [Google Scholar]
  55. B. Kollmeier, A. Warzybok, S. Hochmuth, M.A. Zokoll, V. Uslar, T. Brand, K.C. Wagener: The multilingual matrix test: principles, applications, and comparison across languages: a review. International Journal of Audiology 54, sup2 (2015) 3–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. T. Schoof, S. Rosen: High sentence predictability increases the fluctuating masker benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138, 3 (2015) EL181–EL186. [Google Scholar]
  57. V. Best, E. Roverud, L. Baltzell, J. Rennies, M. Lavandier: The importance of a broad bandwidth for understanding “glimpsed” speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 146, 5 (2019) 3215–3221. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.