Literature DB >> 25127322

Interaural level differences and sound source localization for bilateral cochlear implant patients.

Michael F Dorman1, Louise Loiselle, Josh Stohl, William A Yost, Anthony Spahr, Chris Brown, Sarah Cook.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were (i) to determine the magnitude of the interaural level differences (ILDs) that remain after cochlear implant (CI) signal processing and (ii) to relate the ILDs to the pattern of errors for sound source localization on the horizontal plane.
DESIGN: The listeners were 16 bilateral CI patients fitted with MED-EL CIs and 34 normal-hearing listeners. The stimuli were wideband, high-pass, and low-pass noise signals. ILDs were calculated by passing signals, filtered by head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) to a Matlab simulation of MED-EL signal processing.
RESULTS: For the wideband signal and high-pass signals, maximum ILDs of 15 to 17 dB in the input signal were reduced to 3 to 4 dB after CI signal processing. For the low-pass signal, ILDs were reduced to 1 to 2 dB. For wideband and high-pass signals, the largest ILDs for ±15 degree speaker locations were between 0.4 and 0.7 dB; for the ±30 degree speaker locations between 0.9 and 1.3 dB; for the 45 degree speaker locations between 2.4 and 2.9 dB; for the ±60 degree speaker locations, between 3.2 and 4.1 dB; and for the ±75 degree speaker locations between 2.7 and 3.4 dB. All of the CI patients in all the stimulus conditions showed poorer localization than the normal-hearing listeners. Localization accuracy for the CI patients was best for the wideband and high-pass signals and was poorest for the low-pass signal.
CONCLUSIONS: Localization accuracy was related to the magnitude of the ILD cues available to the normal-hearing listeners and CI patients. The pattern of localization errors for the CI patients was related to the magnitude of the ILD differences among loudspeaker locations. The error patterns for the wideband and high-pass signals, suggest that, for the conditions of this experiment, patients, on an average, sorted signals on the horizontal plane into four sectors-on each side of the midline, one sector including 0, 15, and possibly 30 degree speaker locations, and a sector from 45 degree speaker locations to 75 degree speaker locations. The resolution within a sector was relatively poor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25127322      PMCID: PMC4208940          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  15 in total

1.  Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy.

Authors:  B Stöbich; C M Zierhofer; E S Hochmair
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user.

Authors:  Richard Van Hoesel; Richard Ramsden; Martin Odriscoll
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 3.  Cochlear implants: some likely next steps.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Dewey T Lawson; Joachim M Muller; Richard S Tyler; Jan Kiefer
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2003-04-16       Impact factor: 9.590

4.  Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Richard J M van Hoesel
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Sound localization and sensitivity to interaural cues in bilateral users of the Med-El Combi 40/40+cochlear implant system.

Authors:  F Schoen; J Mueller; J Helms; P Nopp
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Horizontal-plane localization of noise and speech signals by postlingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  D Wesley Grantham; Daniel H Ashmead; Todd A Ricketts; Robert F Labadie; David S Haynes
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Bilateral cochlear implants controlled by a single speech processor.

Authors:  D T Lawson; B S Wilson; M Zerbi; C van den Honert; C C Finley; J C Farmer; J T McElveen; P A Roush
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1998-11

9.  Mapping procedures can produce non-centered auditory images in bilateral cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Localization of sound in rooms, III: Onset and duration effects.

Authors:  B Rakerd; W M Hartmann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  30 in total

1.  The Effect of Microphone Placement on Interaural Level Differences and Sound Localization Across the Horizontal Plane in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Heath G Jones; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Auditory motion tracking ability of adults with normal hearing and with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Keng Moua; Alan Kan; Heath G Jones; Sara M Misurelli; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spatial attention in bilateral cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Using ILD or ITD Cues for Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in a Complex Listening Environment by Listeners With Bilateral and With Hearing-Preservation Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Louise H Loiselle; Michael F Dorman; William A Yost; Sarah J Cook; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Sound source localization is a multisystem process.

Authors:  William A Yost; M Torben Pastore; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Acoust Sci Technol       Date:  2020-01

7.  Comparison of Intensity Discrimination between Children Using Cochlear Implants and Typically Developing Children.

Authors:  Shubha Tak; Asha Yathiraj
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.017

8.  Spatial Release From Masking in Adults With Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Effects of Distracter Azimuth and Microphone Location.

Authors:  Timothy J Davis; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Interaural level difference cues determine sound source localization by single-sided deaf patients fit with a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Daniel Zeitler; Sarah J Cook; Louise Loiselle; William A Yost; George B Wanna; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.