Literature DB >> 30623318

Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users.

Matthew J Goupell1, Stefano Cosentino2, Olga A Stakhovskaya2,3, Joshua G W Bernstein3.   

Abstract

By allowing bilateral access to sound, bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or unilateral CIs for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD; i.e., normal or near-normal hearing in one ear) can improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Spatial hearing in the horizontal plane is primarily conveyed by interaural time and level differences computed from neurons in the superior olivary complex that receive frequency-matched inputs. Because BI-CIs and SSD-CIs do not necessarily convey frequency-matched information, it is critical to understand how to align the inputs to CI users. Previous studies show that interaural pitch discrimination for SSD-CI listeners is highly susceptible to contextual biases, questioning its utility for establishing interaural frequency alignment. Here, we replicate this finding for SSD-CI listeners and show that these biases also extend to BI-CI listeners. To assess the testing-range bias, three ranges of comparison electrodes (BI-CI) or pure-tone frequencies (SSD-CI) were tested: full range, apical/lower half, or basal/upper half. To assess the reference bias, the reference electrode was either held fixed throughout a testing block or randomly chosen from three electrodes (basal end, middle, or apical end of the array). Results showed no effect of reference electrode randomization, but a large testing range bias; changing the center of the testing-range shifted the pitch match by an average 63 % (BI-CI) or 43 % (SSD-CI) of the change magnitude. This bias diminished pitch-match accuracy, with a change in reference electrode shifting the pitch match only an average 34 % (BI-CI) or 40 % (SSD-CI) of the expected amount. Because these effects extended to the relatively more symmetric BI-CI listeners, the results suggest that the bias cannot be attributed to interaural asymmetry. Unless the range effect can be minimized or accounted for, a pitch-discrimination task will produce interaural place-of-stimulation estimates that are highly influenced by the conditions tested, rather than reflecting a true interaural place-pitch comparison.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binaural hearing; cochlear implant; interaural mismatch; pitch

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30623318      PMCID: PMC6454100          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-018-00707-x

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


  41 in total

1.  Pitch ranking with deeply inserted electrode arrays.

Authors:  Uwe Baumann; Andrea Nobbe
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Neural and behavioral sensitivity to interaural time differences using amplitude modulated tones with mismatched carrier frequencies.

Authors:  Deidra A Blanks; Jason M Roberts; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-07-27

3.  Diversity in cochlear morphology and its influence on cochlear implant electrode position.

Authors:  Kim S van der Marel; Jeroen J Briaire; Ron Wolterbeek; Jorien Snel-Bongers; Berit M Verbist; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Binaural unmasking with multiple adjacent masking electrodes in bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Thomas Lu; Ruth Litovsky; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Sensitivity to interaural envelope correlation changes in bilateral cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing.

Authors:  Chin-Tuan Tan; Brett Martin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

8.  A circuit for detection of interaural time differences in the brain stem of the barn owl.

Authors:  C E Carr; M Konishi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Limitations on Monaural and Binaural Temporal Processing in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Antje Ihlefeld; Robert P Carlyon; Alan Kan; Tyler H Churchill; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-06-24

10.  Clinically Paired Electrodes Are Often Not Perceived as Pitch Matched.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Monica Padilla; Julia Stelmach; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-09-18       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  12 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.  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

3.  Effect of channel separation and interaural mismatch on fusion and lateralization in normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

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

4.  Valid Acoustic Models of Cochlear Implants: One Size Does Not Fit All.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Nicole Hope Capach; Jonathan D Neukam; Mahan Azadpour; Elad Sagi; Ariel Edward Hight; E Katelyn Glassman; Annette Lavender; Keena P Seward; Margaret K Miller; Nai Ding; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew B Fitzgerald
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Kenneth K Jensen; Stefano Cosentino; Joshua G W Bernstein; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  No Benefit of Deriving Cochlear-Implant Maps From Binaural Temporal-Envelope Sensitivity for Speech Perception or Spatial Hearing Under Single-Sided Deafness.

Authors:  Coral E Dirks; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.562

7.  Binaural Pitch Fusion: Binaural Pitch Averaging in Cochlear Implant Users With Broad Binaural Fusion.

Authors:  Yonghee Oh; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.562

8.  Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Joshua G W Bernstein; Kenneth K Jensen; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Jack H Noble; Michael Hoa; H Jeffery Kim; Robert Shih; Elizabeth Kolberg; Miranda Cleary; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 6.709

9.  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

10.  Pleasantness Ratings for Harmonic Intervals With Acoustic and Electric Hearing in Unilaterally Deaf Cochlear Implant Patients.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; David M Landsberger; David R Friedmann; John J Galvin
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 4.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.