Sound localization can be difficult in a reverberant environment. Fortunately listeners can utilize various perceptual compensatory mechanisms to increase the reliability of sound localization when provided with ambiguous physical evidence. For example, the directional information of echoes can be perceptually suppressed by the direct sound to achieve a single, fused auditory event in a process called the precedence effect (Litovsky et al., 1999). Visual cues also influence sound localization through a phenomenon known as the ventriloquist effect. It is classically demonstrated by a puppeteer who speaks without visible lip movements while moving the mouth of a puppet synchronously with his/her speech (Gelder and Bertelson, 2003). If the ventriloquist is successful, sound will be “captured” by vision and be perceived to be originating at the location of the puppet. This thesis investigates the influence of vision on the spatial localization of audio-visual stimuli. Participants seated in a sound-attenuated room indicated their perceived locations of either ISI or level-difference stimuli in free field conditions. Two types of stereophonic phantom sound sources, created by modulating the inter-stimulus time interval (ISI) or level difference between two loudspeakers, were used as auditory stimuli. The results showed that the light cues influenced auditory spatial perception to a greater extent for the ISI stimuli than the level difference stimuli. A binaural signal analysis further revealed that the greater visual bias for the ISI phantom sound sources was correlated with the increasingly ambiguous binaural cues of the ISI signals. This finding suggests that when sound localization cues are unreliable, perceptual decisions become increasingly biased towards vision for finding a sound source. These results support the cue saliency theory underlying cross-modal bias and extend this theory to include stereophonic phantom sound sources.

Two groups of cochlear implant (CI) listeners were tested for sound source localization and for speech recognition in complex listening environments. One group (n=11) wore bilateral CIs and, potentially, had access to interaural level difference (ILD) cues, but not interaural timing difference (ITD) cues. The second group (n=12) wore a single CI and had low-frequency, acoustic hearing in both the ear contralateral to the CI and in the implanted ear. These `hearing preservation' listeners, potentially, had access to ITD cues but not to ILD cues. At issue in this dissertation was the value of the two types of information about sound sources, ITDs and ILDs, for localization and for speech perception when speech and noise sources were separated in space. For Experiment 1, normal hearing (NH) listeners and the two groups of CI listeners were tested for sound source localization using a 13 loudspeaker array. For the NH listeners, the mean RMS error for localization was 7 degrees, for the bilateral CI listeners, 20 degrees, and for the hearing preservation listeners, 23 degrees. The scores for the two CI groups did not differ significantly. Thus, both CI groups showed equivalent, but poorer than normal, localization. This outcome using the filtered noise bands for the normal hearing listeners, suggests ILD and ITD cues can support equivalent levels of localization. For Experiment 2, the two groups of CI listeners were tested for speech recognition in noise when the noise sources and targets were spatially separated in a simulated `restaurant' environment and in two versions of a `cocktail party' environment. At issue was whether either CI group would show benefits from binaural hearing, i.e., better performance when the noise and targets were separated in space. Neither of the CI groups showed spatial release from masking. However, both groups showed a significant binaural advantage (a combination of squelch and summation), which also maintained separation of the target and noise, indicating the presence of some binaural processing or `unmasking' of speech in noise. Finally, localization ability in Experiment 1 was not correlated with binaural advantage in Experiment 2.