Literature DB >> 33782914

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

Matthew J Goupell1, Daniel Eisenberg2, Kristina DeRoy Milvae2.   

Abstract

There are an increasing number of bilateral and single-sided-deafness cochlear-implant (CI) users who hope to achieve improved spatial-hearing abilities through access to sound in both ears. It is, however, unclear how speech is processed when inputs are functionally asymmetrical, which may have an impact on spatial-hearing abilities. Therefore, functionally asymmetrical hearing was controlled and parametrically manipulated using a channel vocoder as a CI simulation. In Experiment 1, normal-hearing (NH) listeners performed a dichotic listening task (i.e., selective attention to one ear, ignoring the other) using asymmetrical signal degradation. Spectral resolution varied independently in each ear (4, 8, 16 channels, and unprocessed control). Performance decreased with decreasing resolution in the target ear and increasing resolution in the interferer ear. In Experiment 2, these results were replicated using a divided attention task (attend to both ears, report one after sentence completion) in both NH and bilateral CI listeners, although overall performance was lower than in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, frequency-to-place mismatch simulated shallow CI insertion depths (0, 3, 6-mm shifts, and unprocessed control). Performance mostly decreased with increasing shift in the target ear and decreasing shift in the interferer ear; however, performance nonmonotonicities occurred. The worst performance occurred when the shift matched across ears, suggesting that pitch similarity increases difficulty. The results show that it is more difficult to attend an ear that is relatively degraded or distorted, which may set spatial-hearing limitations for CI users when trying to attend to a target in complex auditory scenes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implants; Divided attention; Selective attention; Vocoding

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33782914      PMCID: PMC8480144          DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02244-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.157


  66 in total

1.  Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; J Wygonski
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Informational masking caused by contralateral stimulation.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Tanya L Arbogast; Douglas S Brungart; Brian D Simpson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  A longitudinal study in adults with sequential bilateral cochlear implants: time course for individual ear and bilateral performance.

Authors:  Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Michael J Strube
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences.

Authors:  Matthew H Davis; Ingrid S Johnsrude; Alexis Hervais-Adelman; Karen Taylor; Carolyn McGettigan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2005-05

5.  Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 6.  Asymmetric Hearing During Development: The Aural Preference Syndrome and Treatment Options.

Authors:  Karen Gordon; Yael Henkin; Andrej Kral
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Memory Span for Spoken Digits in Adults With Cochlear Implants or Typical Hearing: Effects of Age and Identification Ability.

Authors:  Miranda Cleary; Tracy Wilkinson; Lauren Wilson; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

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

Review 9.  Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Line Vestergaard Knudsen; Marie Oberg; Claus Nielsen; Graham Naylor; Sophia E Kramer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-09

10.  Apparent auditory source width insensitivity in older hearing-impaired individuals.

Authors:  William M Whitmer; Bernhard U Seeber; Michael A Akeroyd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  2 in total

1.  Dichotic listening performance and effort as a function of spectral resolution and interaural symmetry.

Authors:  Kristina DeRoy Milvae; Stefanie E Kuchinsky; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 2.482

2.  Effects of better-ear glimpsing, binaural unmasking, and spectral resolution on spatial release from masking in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Bobby E Gibbs; Joshua G W Bernstein; Douglas S Brungart; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 2.482

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.