In this study, localization accuracy and sensitivity to acoustic interaural time differences (ITDs) in subjects using cochlear implants with combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) were assessed and compared with the results of a normal hearing control group. Methods Eight CI users with EAS (2 bilaterally implanted, 6 unilaterally implanted) and symmetric binaural acoustic hearing and 24 normal hearing subjects participated in the study. The first experiment determined mean localization error (MLE) for different angles of sound incidence between ± 60˚(frontal and dorsal presentation). The stimuli were either low-pass, high-pass or broadband noise bursts. In a second experiment, just noticeable differences (JND) of ITDs were measured for pure tones of 125 Hz, 250 Hz and 500 Hz (headphone presentation). Results Experiment 1: MLE of EAS subjects was 8.5˚, 14.3˚and 14.7˚, (low-, high-pass and broadband stimuli respectively). In the control group, MLE was 1.8˚(broadband stimuli). In the differentiation between sound incidence from front and back, EAS subjects performed on chance level. Experiment 2: The JND-ITDs were 88.7 μs for 125 Hz, 48.8 μs for 250 Hz and 52.9 μs for 500 Hz (EAS subjects). Compared to the control group, JND-ITD for 125 Hz was on the same level of performance. No statistically significant correlation was found between MLE and JND-ITD in the EAS cohort. Conclusions Near to normal ITD sensitivity in the lower frequency acoustic hearing was demonstrated in a cohort of EAS users. However, in an acoustic localization task, the majority of the subjects did not reached the level of accuracy of normal hearing. Presumably, signal processing time

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of reverberation on sound localization accuracy and speech perception in noise between subjects with single-sided deafness using a cochlear implant (SSD-CI) and a normal-hearing control group. Methods: Nine SSD-CI subjects and 21 normal-hearing subjects participated in the study. In Experiment 1, the sound localization accuracy was measured with and without reverberation. In Experiment 2, speech reception thresholds were determined with four asymmetrically arranged noise sources in free-field and in reverberation. For the realization of reverberation, a room simulation system comprising of 128 loudspeakers was used. Results: No significant impact of reverberation was found on the sound localization accuracy of the SSD-CI subjects (free-field: 12.6°, reverberation: 11.9°), whereas the normal-hearing subjects performed significantly worse in reverberation (free-field: 1.8°, reverberation: 3.3°). Both subject groups experienced significantly deteriorated speech reception thresholds due to reverberation (p SSD-CI = 0.008, p NH < 0.001). Mean speech reception thresholds in the SSD-CI subjects were −9.7 dB SNR (free-field) and −4.2 dB SNR (reverberation) and a median individual decrease of 5.7 dB SNR in reverberation. Mean speech reception thresholds in the normal-hearing group were −14.0 dB SNR (free-field) and −10.3 dB SNR (reverberation). Conclusion: A strong deterioration of sound localization accuracy due to reverberation did not occur. However, although partial restoration of binaural hearing is assumed in SSD-CI users, the impact of reverberation on speech perception in noise is much stronger compared to normal-hearing.

No abstract

No abstract