Literature DB >> 24464088

Abnormal binaural spectral integration in cochlear implant users.

Lina A J Reiss1, Rindy A Ito, Jessica L Eggleston, David R Wozny.   

Abstract

Bimodal stimulation, or stimulation of a cochlear implant (CI) together with a contralateral hearing aid (HA), can improve speech perception in noise However, this benefit is variable, and some individuals even experience interference with bimodal stimulation. One contributing factor to this variability may be differences in binaural spectral integration (BSI) due to abnormal auditory experience. CI programming introduces interaural pitch mismatches, in which the frequencies allocated to the electrodes (and contralateral HA) differ from the electrically stimulated cochlear frequencies. Previous studies have shown that some, but not all, CI users adapt pitch perception to reduce this mismatch. The purpose of this study was to determine whether broadened BSI may also reduce the perception of mismatch. Interaural pitch mismatches and dichotic pitch fusion ranges were measured in 21 bimodal CI users. Seventeen subjects with wide fusion ranges also conducted a task to pitch match various fused electrode-tone pairs. All subjects showed abnormally wide dichotic fusion frequency ranges of 1-4 octaves. The fusion range size was weakly correlated with the interaural pitch mismatch, suggesting a link between broad binaural pitch fusion and large interaural pitch mismatch. Dichotic pitch averaging was also observed, in which a new binaural pitch resulted from the fusion of the original monaural pitches, even when the pitches differed by as much as 3-4 octaves. These findings suggest that abnormal BSI, indicated by broadened fusion ranges and spectral averaging between ears, may account for speech perception interference and nonoptimal integration observed with bimodal compared with monaural hearing device use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24464088      PMCID: PMC3946135          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-013-0434-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  34 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Binocular fusion of luminance, color, motion and flicker--two eyes are worse than one.

Authors:  Stuart Anstis; Brian Rogers
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Hearing lips and seeing voices.

Authors:  H McGurk; J MacDonald
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Tony Spahr; Rene Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sharon McKarns; Timothy Holden; Margaret Skinner; Charles Finley
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-10

5.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  R J van Hoesel; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Dichotic pitch fusion.

Authors:  G van den Brink; K Sintnicolaas; W S van Stam
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Effects of lower frequency-to-electrode allocations on speech and pitch perception with the hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Ann E Perreau; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Psychophysical and speech perception studies: a case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject.

Authors:  R J van Hoesel; Y C Tong; R D Hollow; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Sheryl R Erenberg; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-09
View more
  28 in total

1.  Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Jennifer R Fowler; Jessica L Eggleston; Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Rindy A Ito; Jessica L Eggleston; Selena Liao; Jillian J Becker; Carrie E Lakin; Frank M Warren; Sean O McMenomey
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Factors Affecting Bimodal Benefit in Pediatric Mandarin-Speaking Chinese Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Yang-Wenyi Liu; Duo-Duo Tao; Bing Chen; Xiaoting Cheng; Yilai Shu; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Two Ears Are Not Always Better than One: Mandatory Vowel Fusion Across Spectrally Mismatched Ears in Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Jessica L Eggleston; Emily P Walker; Yonghee Oh
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-05-24

5.  Asymmetric temporal envelope encoding: Implications for within- and across-ear envelope comparison.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Cochlear implants and other inner ear prostheses: today and tomorrow.

Authors:  Lina Aj Reiss
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-08-14

7.  Binaural Pitch Fusion in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Jennifer R Fowler; Curtis L Hartling; Yonghee Oh
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Binaural pitch fusion: Pitch averaging and dominance in hearing-impaired listeners with broad fusion.

Authors:  Yonghee Oh; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners' Ability to Perceive Minimal Audible Angle Differences.

Authors:  Ashley Zaleski-King; Matthew J Goupell; Dragana Barac-Cikoja; Matthew Bakke
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Perceptually aligning apical frequency regions leads to more binaural fusion of speech in a cochlear implant simulation.

Authors:  Hannah E Staisloff; Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.