Literature DB >> 12656396

Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants.

Richard J M van Hoesel1, Richard S Tyler.   

Abstract

Five bilateral cochlear implant users were tested for their localization abilities and speech understanding in noise, for both monaural and binaural listening conditions. They also participated in lateralization tasks to assess the impact of variations in interaural time delays (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs) for electrical pulse trains under direct computer control. The localization task used pink noise bursts presented from an eight-loudspeaker array spanning an arc of approximately 108 degrees in front of the listeners at ear level (0-degree elevation). Subjects showed large benefits from bilateral device use compared to either side alone. Typical root-mean-square (rms) averaged errors across all eight loudspeakers in the array were about 10 degrees for bilateral device use and ranged from 20 degrees to 60 degrees using either ear alone. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for sentences presented from directly in front of the listeners (0 degrees) in spectrally matching speech-weighted noise at either 0 degrees, +90 degrees or -90 degrees for four subjects out of five tested who could perform the task. For noise to either side, bilateral device use showed a substantial benefit over unilateral device use when noise was ipsilateral to the unilateral device. This was primarily because of monaural head-shadow effects, which resulted in robust SRT improvements (P<0.001) of about 4 to 5 dB when ipsilateral and contralateral noise positions were compared. The additional benefit of using both ears compared to the shadowed ear (i.e., binaural unmasking) was only 1 or 2 dB and less robust (P = 0.04). Results from the lateralization studies showed consistently good sensitivity to ILDs; better than the smallest level adjustment available in the implants (0.17 dB) for some subjects. Sensitivity to ITDs was moderate on the other hand, typically of the order of 100 micros. ITD sensitivity deteriorated rapidly when stimulation rates for unmodulated pulse-trains increased above a few hundred Hz but at 800 pps showed sensitivity comparable to 50-pps pulse-trains when a 50-Hz modulation was applied. In our opinion, these results clearly demonstrate important benefits are available from bilateral implantation, both for localizing sounds (in quiet) and for listening in noise when signal and noise sources are spatially separated. The data do indicate, however, that effects of interaural timing cues are weaker than those from interaural level cues and according to our psychophysical findings rely on the availability of low-rate information below a few hundred Hz.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12656396     DOI: 10.1121/1.1539520

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  168 in total

1.  Studies on bilateral cochlear implants at the University of Wisconsin's Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell; Shelly Godar; Tina Grieco-Calub; Gary L Jones; Soha N Garadat; Smita Agrawal; Alan Kan; Ann Todd; Christi Hess; Sara Misurelli
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Lateral superior olive function in congenital deafness.

Authors:  Kiri Couchman; Andrew Garrett; Adam S Deardorff; Frank Rattay; Susanne Resatz; Robert Fyffe; Bruce Walmsley; Richardson N Leão
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 4.  The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people-a personal perspective.

Authors:  Graeme M Clark
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-05-29       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 5.  [Current developments in cochlear implantation].

Authors:  R Laszig; A Aschendorff; J Schipper; T Klenzner
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  Statistical bias in the assessment of binaural benefit relative to the better ear.

Authors:  Richard J M van Hoesel; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Multi-microphone adaptive noise reduction strategies for coordinated stimulation in bilateral cochlear implant devices.

Authors:  Kostas Kokkinakis; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Clinical selection criteria for a second cochlear implant for bimodal listeners.

Authors:  Yang-soo Yoon; You-Ree Shin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Spatial release from masking in children with normal hearing and with bilateral cochlear implants: effect of interferer asymmetry.

Authors:  Sara M Misurelli; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting.

Authors:  Philipos C Loizou; Yi Hu; Ruth Litovsky; Gongqiang Yu; Robert Peters; Jennifer Lake; Peter Roland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.