Literature DB >> 32182551

Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.

René H Gifford1, G Christopher Stecker2.   

Abstract

Bilateral acoustic hearing in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with hearing preservation may allow access to binaural cues. Sensitivity to acoustic binaural cues has been shown in some listeners combining electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS), yet remains poorly understood and may be subject to limitations imposed by the electrical stimulation and/or amplification asymmetries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of stimulus level, frequency-dependent gain, and the addition of unilateral electrical stimulation on sensitivity to low-frequency binaural cues. Thresholds were measured for interaural time and level differences (ITD and ILD) carried by a low-frequency, bandpass noise (100-800 Hz). 16 adult CI EAS listeners (mean age = 50.2 years) each participated in three listening conditions: acoustic hearing only at 90 dB SPL, acoustic hearing only at 60 dB SPL with frequency-dependent gain, and acoustic hearing plus unilateral CI at 60 dB SPL with frequency-dependent gain applied to the acoustic channels only. Results revealed thresholds within the ecologically relevant ITD and/or ILD range for most EAS listeners. No significant effects of presentation level, frequency-dependent gain, or the addition of unilateral electrical stimulation on the resultant thresholds for ITDs or ILDs were observed at the group level. Correlational analyses related ITD and ILD thresholds to the degree of EAS benefit (i.e., advantage of acoustic hearing in the implanted ear) for speech recognition in diffuse noise. There was a significant relationship between EAS benefit and ITD thresholds, but no statistically significant relationship between EAS benefit and ILD thresholds. In summary, the results of this study are not consistent with our previous data obtained with simulated EAS in normal-hearing listeners, which showed significant binaural interference by a unilateral electrical "distractor" (Van Ginkel et al., 2019). The difference between studies suggests that chronic exposure to unilateral electrical stimulation combined with bilateral acoustic stimulation may reduce interference effects, perhaps because listeners adapt to the presence of the constant but binaurally incongruous CI stimulus. These results are consistent with past studies that demonstrated no interference in spatial hearing tasks due to the addition of a unilateral CI in adult EAS listeners.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Binaural cues; Binaural interference; Cochlear implant; Electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS); Hearing preservation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32182551      PMCID: PMC7187911          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107929

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


  21 in total

1.  The preferred number of channels (one, two, or four) in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) devices.

Authors:  G Keidser; F Grant
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Lateralization of high frequencies based on interaural time differences.

Authors:  D McFadden; E G Pasanen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Interference in detection of interaural delay in a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone produced by a second, spectrally remote sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone.

Authors:  L M Heller; C Trahiotis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Binaural interference with simulated electric acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Chantal van Ginkel; René H Gifford; G Christopher Stecker
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant.

Authors:  Kerrie Plant; Leanne Babic
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise.

Authors:  A W Bronkhorst; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

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

8.  Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant.

Authors:  Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Monika Matusiak; Marek Porowski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Chris J James
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Christine Menapace; Barbara Buck; Jillian Crosson; Lori O'Neill; Anne Beiter; Phil Segel
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults: Final Outcomes.

Authors:  Harold C Pillsbury; Margaret T Dillon; Craig A Buchman; Hinrich Staecker; Sandra M Prentiss; Michael J Ruckenstein; Douglas C Bigelow; Fred F Telischi; Diane M Martinez; Christina L Runge; David R Friedland; Nikolas H Blevins; Jannine B Larky; George Alexiades; David M Kaylie; Peter S Roland; Richard T Miyamoto; Douglas D Backous; Frank M Warren; Hussam K El-Kashlan; Heidi K Slager; Carisa Reyes; Allison I Racey; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  6 in total

1.  Changes in Acoustic Absorbance Pre- and Post-Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Jordan M Racca; Laura L Jones; Robert T Dwyer; Mary Ferguson; Linsey Sunderhaus; Linda J Hood; René H Gifford
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 1.636

2.  Considerations in pediatric device candidacy: An emphasis on spoken language.

Authors:  Natalie A Hayes; Lisa S Davidson; Rosalie M Uchanski
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2022-05-30

3.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) in Children: Investigating Benefit Afforded by Bilateral Versus Unilateral Acoustic Hearing.

Authors:  Jillian B Roberts; G Christopher Stecker; Jourdan T Holder; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Bimodal Benefits for Lexical Tone Recognition: An Investigation on Mandarin-speaking Preschoolers with a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Jing Zhang; Hongwei Ding; Yang Zhang
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2020-04-17

5.  Sensitivity to interaural time differences and localization accuracy in cochlear implant users with combined electric-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Monika Körtje; Uwe Baumann; Timo Stöver; Tobias Weissgerber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Benefits of Binaural Integration in Cochlear Implant Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and Residual Hearing in the Implanted Ear.

Authors:  Artur Lorens; Anita Obrycka; Piotr Henryk Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-23
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.