Literature DB >> 27787393

The Relationship Between Intensity Coding and Binaural Sensitivity in Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Ann E Todd1, Matthew J Goupell, Ruth Y Litovsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Many bilateral cochlear implant users show sensitivity to binaural information when stimulation is provided using a pair of synchronized electrodes. However, there is large variability in binaural sensitivity between and within participants across stimulation sites in the cochlea. It was hypothesized that within-participant variability in binaural sensitivity is in part affected by limitations and characteristics of the auditory periphery which may be reflected by monaural hearing performance. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between monaural and binaural hearing performance within participants with bilateral cochlear implants.
DESIGN: Binaural measures included dichotic signal detection and interaural time difference discrimination thresholds. Diotic signal detection thresholds were also measured. Monaural measures included dynamic range and amplitude modulation detection. In addition, loudness growth was compared between ears. Measures were made at three stimulation sites per listener.
RESULTS: Greater binaural sensitivity was found with larger dynamic ranges. Poorer interaural time difference discrimination was found with larger difference between comfortable levels of the two ears. In addition, poorer diotic signal detection thresholds were found with larger differences between the dynamic ranges of the two ears. No relationship was found between amplitude modulation detection thresholds or symmetry of loudness growth and the binaural measures.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that some of the variability in binaural hearing performance within listeners across stimulation sites can be explained by factors nonspecific to binaural processing. The results are consistent with the idea that dynamic range and comfortable levels relate to peripheral neural survival and the width of the excitation pattern which could affect the fidelity with which central binaural nuclei process bilateral inputs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27787393      PMCID: PMC5322240          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000382

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


  63 in total

Review 1.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

2.  Auditory localization abilities in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Carl A Verschuur; Mark E Lutman; Richard Ramsden; Paula Greenham; Martin O'Driscoll
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  The use of interaural time and level difference cues by bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Yang-Soo Yoon; Daniel J Freed; Andrew J Vermiglio; Ivan Pal; Sigfrid D Soli
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection: relation to speech recognition.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on binaural fusion and lateralization in bilateral cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Alan Kan; Corey Stoelb; Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Sensitivity to interaural time difference with bilateral cochlear implants: Development over time and effect of interaural electrode spacing.

Authors:  Becky B Poon; Donald K Eddington; Victor Noel; H Steven Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  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

8.  The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results.

Authors:  Aaron J Parkinson; Jennifer Arcaroli; Steven J Staller; Patti L Arndt; Anne Cosgriff; Kiara Ebinger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  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

10.  Factors influencing the masking level difference in cochlear hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  J W Hall; R S Tyler; M A Fernandes
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1984-03
View more
  4 in total

1.  Effects of rate and age in processing interaural time and level differences in normal-hearing and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Kyle Easter; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Influence of bilateral cochlear implants on vocal control.

Authors:  Abbigail Kirchner; Torrey M Loucks; Elizabeth Abbs; Kevin Shi; Jeff W Yu; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Evaluating the Impact of Age, Acoustic Exposure, and Electrical Stimulation on Binaural Sensitivity in Adult Bilateral Cochlear Implant Patients.

Authors:  Tanvi Thakkar; Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2020-06-26

4.  Polarity Sensitivity in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.