Literature DB >> 25549574

Unilateral spectral and temporal compression reduces binaural fusion for normal hearing listeners with cochlear implant simulations.

Justin M Aronoff1, Corey Shayman2, Akila Prasad3, Deepa Suneel4, Julia Stelmach5.   

Abstract

Patients with single sided deafness have recently begun receiving cochlear implants in their deaf ear. These patients gain a significant benefit from having a cochlear implant. However, despite this benefit, they are considerably slower to develop binaural abilities such as summation compared to bilateral cochlear implant patients. This suggests that these patients have difficulty fusing electric and acoustic signals. Although this may reflect inherent differences between electric and acoustic stimulation, it may also reflect properties of the processor and fitting system, which result in spectral and temporal compression. To examine the possibility that unilateral spectral and temporal compression can adversely affect binaural fusion, this study tested normal hearing listeners' binaural fusion through the use of vocoded speech with unilateral spectral and temporal compression. The results indicate that unilateral spectral and temporal compression can each hinder binaural fusion and thus may adversely affect binaural abilities in patients with single sided deafness who use a cochlear implant in their deaf ear.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25549574      PMCID: PMC4440320          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  17 in total

1.  Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants.

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

2.  Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later.

Authors:  D D Greenwood
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Comparison of speech recognition and localization performance in bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users matched on duration of deafness and age at implantation.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Richard S Tyler; Sarah Oakley; Bruce J Gantz; William Noble
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Across-frequency delays based on the cochlear traveling wave: enhanced speech presentation for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Daniel A Taft; David B Grayden; Anthony N Burkitt
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  Latency of auditory brain-stem responses and otoacoustic emissions using tone-burst stimuli.

Authors:  S T Neely; S J Norton; M P Gorga; W Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Depth of electrode insertion and postoperative performance in humans with cochlear implants: a histopathologic study.

Authors:  Joonhan Lee; Joseph B Nadol; Donald K Eddington
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 1.854

8.  Hearing-in-noise benefits after bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation continue to improve 4 years after implantation.

Authors:  Rose J Eapen; Emily Buss; Marcia Clark Adunka; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Cochlear implant speech processor frequency allocations may influence pitch perception.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Bruce J Gantz; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users compared on speech perception in noise.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; William Noble; Richard S Tyler; Monika Kordus; Bruce J Gantz; Haihong Ji
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  15 in total

1.  Accommodation of gender-related phonetic differences by listeners with cochlear implants and in a variety of vocoder simulations.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Pitch Matching Adapts Even for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with Relatively Small Initial Pitch Differences Across the Ears.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Hannah E Staisloff; Abbigail Kirchner; Daniel H Lee; Julia Stelmach
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-08-05

3.  Localization performance correlates with binaural fusion for interaurally mismatched vocoded speech.

Authors:  Deepa Suneel; Hannah Staisloff; Corey S Shayman; Julia Stelmach; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Determining the minimum number of electrodes that need to be pitch matched to accurately estimate pitch matches across the array.

Authors:  Julia Stelmach; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders.

Authors:  Jessica M Wess; Nathaniel J Spencer; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; Matthew J Goupell; Nathaniel J Spencer; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Changing stimulation patterns can change the broadness of contralateral masking functions for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  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

9.  Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Zhou; Huajun Li; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Wei Yuan
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Effects of Spectral Resolution and Frequency Mismatch on Speech Understanding and Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Bilateral Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Kevin Xu; Shelby Willis; Quinton Gopen; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.