From 27 positions on the skull surface in six intact cadaver heads, Stenfelt and Goode (2005) [64] reported that the phase velocity inside the cranial bone is estimated to enhance from about 250 m/s at 2 kHz to 300 m/s at ten kHz. Despite the fact that the propagation velocity worth in the skull thus differs based on the frequency of your bone-conducted sound, the object (dry skull, living topic, human cadaver), and also the measurement technique, this velocity indicates the TD of your bone-conducted sound for ipsilateral mastoid stimulation in between the ipsilateral and the contralateral cochleae. Zeitooni et al. (2016) [19] described that the TD involving the cochleae for mastoid placement of BC stimulation is estimated to be 0.3 to 0.5 ms at frequencies above 1 kHz, while there are actually no reputable estimates at lower frequencies. As described above, the bone-conducted sound induced through bilateral devices may cause complicated interference for the bilateral cochleae resulting from TA and TD. Farrel et al. (2017) [65] measured ITD and ILD from the intracochlear pressures and stapes velocity conveyed by bilateral BC systems. They showed that the variation with the ITDs and ILDs conveyed by bone-anchored hearing devices systematically modulated cochlear inputs. They concluded that binaural disparities potentiate binaural advantage, supplying a basis for improved sound localization. At the similar time, transcranial cross-talk could result in complex interactions that rely on cue type and stimulus frequency. three. Accuracy of Sound Localization and Lateralization Working with Device(s) As pointed out above, preceding research have shown that sound localization by boneconducted sound with bilaterally fitted devices involves a higher range of components than sound localization by air-conducted sound. Next, a critique was produced to assess just how much the accuracy of sound localization by bilaterally fitted devices differs from that with unilaterally fitted devices or unaided conditions for participants with bilateral (simulated) CHL and with typical hearing. The methodology of your research is shown in Tables 1 and two. 3.1. Normal-Hearing Participants with Simulated CHL Biotin-NHS custom synthesis Gawliczek et al. (2018a) [21] evaluated sound localization capability making use of two noninvasive BCDs (BCD1: ADHEAR; BCD2: Baha5 with softband) for unilateral and bilateral simulated CHL with earplugs. The mean absolute localization error (MAE) within the bilateral fitting condition improved by 34.2 for BCD1 and by 27.9 for BCD2 as compared with all the unilateral fitting situation, as a result resulting in a slight difference of about 7 among BCD1 and BCD2. The authors stated that the difference was triggered by the ILD and ITD from different microphone positions involving the BCDs. Gawliczek et al. (2018b) [22] additional measured the audiological benefit from the Baha SoundArc and compared it with all the known softband choices. No statistically considerable distinction was found among the SoundArc and the softband solutions in any in the tests (soundfield thresholds, speech understanding in quiet and in noise, and sound localization). Applying two sound processors in lieu of 1 improved the sound localization error by 5 , from 23 to 28 . Snapp et al. (2020) [23] investigated the unilaterally and bilaterally aided benefits of aBCDs (ADHER) in normal-hearing listeners under simulated (plugged) unilateral and bilateral CHL situations utilizing measures of sound localization. Within the listening conditions with bilateral plugs and bilateral aBCD, listeners could localize the stimuli with.