Literature DB >> 32132377

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

Kevin Xu1, Shelby Willis, Quinton Gopen, Qian-Jie Fu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Due to interaural frequency mismatch, bilateral cochlear-implant (CI) users may be less able to take advantage of binaural cues that normal-hearing (NH) listeners use for spatial hearing, such as interaural time differences and interaural level differences. As such, bilateral CI users have difficulty segregating competing speech even when the target and competing talkers are spatially separated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of spectral resolution, tonotopic mismatch (the frequency mismatch between the acoustic center frequency assigned to CI electrode within an implanted ear relative to the expected spiral ganglion characteristic frequency), and interaural mismatch (differences in the degree of tonotopic mismatch in each ear) on speech understanding and spatial release from masking (SRM) in the presence of competing talkers in NH subjects listening to bilateral vocoder simulations.
DESIGN: During testing, both target and masker speech were presented in five-word sentences that had the same syntax but were not necessarily meaningful. The sentences were composed of five categories in fixed order (Name, Verb, Number, Color, and Clothes), each of which had 10 items, such that multiple sentences could be generated by randomly selecting a word from each category. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for the target sentence presented in competing speech maskers were measured. The target speech was delivered to both ears and the two speech maskers were delivered to (1) both ears (diotic masker), or (2) different ears (dichotic masker: one delivered to the left ear and the other delivered to the right ear). Stimuli included the unprocessed speech and four 16-channel sine-vocoder simulations with different interaural mismatch (0, 1, and 2 mm). SRM was calculated as the difference between the diotic and dichotic listening conditions.
RESULTS: With unprocessed speech, SRTs were 0.3 and -18.0 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. For the spectrally degraded speech with mild tonotopic mismatch and no interaural mismatch, SRTs were 5.6 and -2.0 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. When the tonotopic mismatch increased in both ears, SRTs worsened to 8.9 and 2.4 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. When the two ears had different tonotopic mismatch (e.g., there was interaural mismatch), the performance drop in SRTs was much larger for the dichotic than for the diotic masker. The largest SRM was observed with unprocessed speech (18.3 dB). With the CI simulations, SRM was significantly reduced to 7.6 dB even with mild tonotopic mismatch but no interaural mismatch; SRM was further reduced with increasing interaural mismatch.
CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that frequency resolution, tonotopic mismatch, and interaural mismatch have differential effects on speech understanding and SRM in simulation of bilateral CIs. Minimizing interaural mismatch may be critical to optimize binaural benefits and improve CI performance for competing speech, a typical listening environment. SRM (the difference in SRTs between diotic and dichotic maskers) may be a useful clinical tool to assess interaural frequency mismatch in bilateral CI users and to evaluate the benefits of optimization methods that minimize interaural mismatch.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32132377      PMCID: PMC7483140          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.562


  56 in total

1.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers.

Authors:  D S Brungart
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user.

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Donald K Eddington; H Steven Colburn; William M Rabinowitz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels in perimodiolar electrode recipients.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants.

Authors:  Joseph D Crew; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Clinical evaluation of an image-guided cochlear implant programming strategy.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; René H Gifford; Andrea J Hedley-Williams; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Yang-Soo Yoon; Yongxin Li; Hou-Yong Kang; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S).

Authors:  Sharon Cameron; Harvey Dillon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Binaural benefit with and without a bilateral spectral mismatch in acoustic simulations of cochlear implant processing.

Authors:  Yang-Soo Yoon; You-Ree Shin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Interactions between unsupervised learning and the degree of spectral mismatch on short-term perceptual adaptation to spectrally shifted speech.

Authors:  Tianhao Li; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Benefits to Speech Perception in Noise From the Binaural Integration of Electric and Acoustic Signals in Simulated Unilateral Deafness.

Authors:  Ning Ma; Saffron Morris; Pádraig Thomas Kitterick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  7 in total

1.  Computed-Tomography Estimates of Interaural Mismatch in Insertion Depth and Scalar Location in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Jack H Noble; Sandeep A Phatak; Elizabeth Kolberg; Miranda Cleary; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Kenneth K Jensen; Michael Hoa; Hung Jeffrey Kim; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 2.619

2.  Impacts of signal processing factors on perceptual restoration in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Sarah Weinstein; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.482

3.  Effects of tonotopic matching and spatial cues on segregation of competing speech in simulations of bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mathew Thomas; Shelby Willis; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 4.  Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf.

Authors:  Sabrina H Pieper; Noura Hamze; Stefan Brill; Sabine Hochmuth; Mats Exter; Marek Polak; Andreas Radeloff; Michael Buschermöhle; Mathias Dietz
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

5.  Cochlear Implantation in Cases of Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Subjective Benefit, Word Recognition, and Spatial Hearing.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; Meredith A Rooth; English R King; Sarah A McCarthy; Andrea L Bucker; Ellen J Deres; Margaret E Richter; Nicholas J Thompson; Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Harold C Pillsbury; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  Effectiveness of Place-based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Dichotic listening performance with cochlear-implant simulations of ear asymmetry is consistent with difficulty ignoring clearer speech.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Daniel Eisenberg; Kristina DeRoy Milvae
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.157

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.