Joshua G W Bernstein1, Matthew J Goupell, Gerald I Schuchman, Arnaldo L Rivera, Douglas S Brungart. 1. 1National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; 2Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland-College Park, College Park, Maryland, USA; and 3Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Listening to speech with multiple competing talkers requires the perceptual separation of the target voice from the interfering background. Normal-hearing listeners are able to take advantage of perceived differences in the spatial locations of competing sound sources to facilitate this process. Previous research suggests that bilateral (BI) cochlear-implant (CI) listeners cannot do so, and it is unknown whether single-sided deaf (SSD) CI users (one acoustic and one CI ear) have this ability. This study investigated whether providing a second ear via cochlear implantation can facilitate the perceptual separation of targets and interferers in a listening situation involving multiple competing talkers. DESIGN: BI-CI and SSD-CI listeners were required to identify speech from a target talker mixed with one or two interfering talkers. In the baseline monaural condition, the target speech and the interferers were presented to one of the CIs (for the BI-CI listeners) or to the acoustic ear (for the SSD-CI listeners). In the bilateral condition, the target was still presented to the first ear but the interferers were presented to both the target ear and the listener's second ear (always a CI), thereby testing whether CI listeners could use information about the interferer obtained from a second ear to facilitate perceptual separation of the target and interferer. RESULTS: Presenting a copy of the interfering signals to the second ear improved performance, up to 4 to 5 dB (12 to 18 percentage points), but the amount of improvement depended on the type of interferer. For BI-CI listeners, the improvement occurred mainly in conditions involving one interfering talker, regardless of gender. For SSD-CI listeners, the improvement occurred in conditions involving one or two interfering talkers of the same gender as the target. This interaction is consistent with the idea that the SSD-CI listeners had access to pitch cues in their normal-hearing ear to separate the opposite-gender target and interferers, while the BI-CI listeners did not. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a second auditory input via a CI can facilitate the perceptual separation of competing talkers in situations where monaural cues are insufficient to do so, thus partially restoring a key advantage of having two ears that was previously thought to be inaccessible to CI users.
OBJECTIVES: Listening to speech with multiple competing talkers requires the perceptual separation of the target voice from the interfering background. Normal-hearing listeners are able to take advantage of perceived differences in the spatial locations of competing sound sources to facilitate this process. Previous research suggests that bilateral (BI) cochlear-implant (CI) listeners cannot do so, and it is unknown whether single-sided deaf (SSD) CI users (one acoustic and one CI ear) have this ability. This study investigated whether providing a second ear via cochlear implantation can facilitate the perceptual separation of targets and interferers in a listening situation involving multiple competing talkers. DESIGN: BI-CI and SSD-CI listeners were required to identify speech from a target talker mixed with one or two interfering talkers. In the baseline monaural condition, the target speech and the interferers were presented to one of the CIs (for the BI-CI listeners) or to the acoustic ear (for the SSD-CI listeners). In the bilateral condition, the target was still presented to the first ear but the interferers were presented to both the target ear and the listener's second ear (always a CI), thereby testing whether CI listeners could use information about the interferer obtained from a second ear to facilitate perceptual separation of the target and interferer. RESULTS: Presenting a copy of the interfering signals to the second ear improved performance, up to 4 to 5 dB (12 to 18 percentage points), but the amount of improvement depended on the type of interferer. For BI-CI listeners, the improvement occurred mainly in conditions involving one interfering talker, regardless of gender. For SSD-CI listeners, the improvement occurred in conditions involving one or two interfering talkers of the same gender as the target. This interaction is consistent with the idea that the SSD-CI listeners had access to pitch cues in their normal-hearing ear to separate the opposite-gender target and interferers, while the BI-CI listeners did not. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a second auditory input via a CI can facilitate the perceptual separation of competing talkers in situations where monaural cues are insufficient to do so, thus partially restoring a key advantage of having two ears that was previously thought to be inaccessible to CI users.
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
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
Authors: Paul Van de Heyning; Dayse Távora-Vieira; Griet Mertens; Vincent Van Rompaey; Gunesh P Rajan; Joachim Müller; John Martin Hempel; Daniel Leander; Daniel Polterauer; Mathieu Marx; Shin-Ichi Usami; Ryosuke Kitoh; Maiko Miyagawa; Hideaki Moteki; Kari Smilsky; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Thomas Georg Keintzel; Georg Mathias Sprinzl; Astrid Wolf-Magele; Susan Arndt; Thomas Wesarg; Stefan Zirn; Uwe Baumann; Tobias Weissgerber; Tobias Rader; Rudolf Hagen; Anja Kurz; Kristen Rak; Robert Stokroos; Erwin George; Ruben Polo; María Del Mar Medina; Yael Henkin; Ohad Hilly; David Ulanovski; Ranjith Rajeswaran; Mohan Kameswaran; Maria Fernanda Di Gregorio; Mario E Zernotti Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 1.854