Binaural Pitch Fusion in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Reiss, Lina A. J.; Fowler, Jennifer R.; Hartling, Curtis L.; Oh, Yonghee

doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000497

Cited by 27 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While not the same as sound quality measurements across ears, inter-aural pitch matching experiments have shown difficulties matching the pitch of an acoustic signal in one ear [which contains temporal fine-structure (TFS) information that is important to pitch perception] to the pitch associated with stimulation of a single electrode [which does not contain TFS information and stimulates a broader cochlear region]. Work by Reiss and colleagues [ 28 – 30 ] has shown that inter-aural frequency mismatch can limit binaural fusion of acoustic and electric stimulation across ears or bilateral electric stimulation. Such inter-aural frequency mismatch can also limit perception of inter-aural timing differences (ITDs) that are important for sound source localization and image fusion [ 31 – 33 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In bimodal listening, cochlear implant (CI) users combine electric hearing (EH) in one ear and acoustic hearing (AH) in the other ear. In electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), CI users combine EH and AH in the same ear. In quiet, integration of EH and AH has been shown to be better with EAS, but with greater sensitivity to tonotopic mismatch in EH. The goal of the present study was to evaluate how external noise might affect integration of AH and EH within or across ears. Recognition of monosyllabic words was measured for normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal (AH or EH alone), EAS, and bimodal listening in quiet and in speech-shaped steady noise (10 dB, 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio). The input/output frequency range for AH was 0.1-0.6 kHz. EH was simulated using an 8-channel noise vocoder. The output frequency range was 1.2-8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth. The input frequency range was either matched (1.2-8.0 kHz) or mismatched (0.6-8.0 kHz) to the output frequency range; the mismatched input range maximized the amount of speech information, while the matched input resulted in some speech information loss. In quiet, tonotopic mismatch differently affected EAS and bimodal performance. In noise, EAS and bimodal performance was similarly affected by tonotopic mismatch. The data suggest that tonotopic mismatch may differently affect integration of EH and AH in quiet and in noise.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from binaural fusion, there is a growing body of work showing that users of hearing aids, bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal devices have a much wider pitch fusion range than normal-hearing listeners, i.e., different monaural pitches are fused into a single binaural pitch (Reiss et al, 2017, 2018; Oh and Reiss, 2017). A similar phenomenon has been shown for vowel fusion (Reiss et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear

Francart

Wiebe

Wesarg

2018

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently there is a growing population of cochlear-implant (CI) users with (near) normal hearing in the non-implanted ear. This configuration is often called SSD (single-sided deafness) CI. The goal of the CI is often to improve spatial perception, so the question raises to what extent SSD CI listeners are sensitive to interaural time differences (ITDs). In a controlled lab setup, sensitivity to ITDs was investigated in eleven SSD CI listeners. The stimuli were 100-pps pulse trains on the CI side and band-limited click trains on the acoustic side. After determining level balance and the delay needed to achieve synchronous stimulation of the two ears, the just noticeable difference in ITD was measured using an adaptive procedure. Seven out of eleven listeners were sensitive to ITDs, with a median just noticeable difference of 438 μs. Out of the four listeners who were not sensitive to ITD, one listener reported binaural fusion,and three listeners reported no binaural fusion. To enable ITD sensitivity, a frequency-dependent delay of the electrical stimulus was required to synchronise the electric and acoustic signals at the level of the auditory nerve. Using subjective fusion measures and refined by ITD sensitivity, it was possible to match a CI electrode to an acoustic frequency range. This shows the feasibility of these measures for the allocation of acoustic frequency ranges to electrodes when fitting a CI to a subject with (near) normal hearing in the contralateral ear.

show abstract

“…The best scores were in bilateral cochlear implant fitting followed by unilateral best implant; the least scores were in the unilateral second implant. Also, there was a gradual improvement of scores from 3 to 6 months and 6 to 12 months after the second implant fitting [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Bilateral cochlear implantation: simultaneous versus sequential

Elrashidy

Khater

Shabana

et al. 2020

Egypt J Otolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Bilateral cochlear implantation (BiCI) has been provided with an intent to promote binaural hearing and improve quality of life (QoL). Binaural hearing maximum benefit could be optimized with BiCI, when indicated in the early stages of life through preserving the cortical hearing development. Actually, BiCI benefits wide variables among patients, and in this work, we aimed to analyze the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation over unilateral and the simultaneous over sequential implantation in peri-and post-lingual patients. The analysis based on common clinically used audiological tests such as aided hearing threshold and speech perception measures. Results: The results of the aided threshold and speech perception measures in all patients revealed a significantly better response in the bilateral implantations than in unilateral each implant separately. Overall, the best response was seen in the simultaneous bilateral group followed by sequential bilateral groups. In post-lingual patients, a better response was observed in sequential and similar bilateral than in sequential and different device groups with significant differences. Change of performance across time revealed aided threshold improvement of the from 3 to 6 months. In speech perception measures, the post-lingual group revealed significant improvement of high-context sentence test (HCST) scores from 3 to 6 months and 12 months. In the peri-lingual group, Early Speech Perception test (ESPT) revealed a change in performance with time at 3, 6, and 12 months. In addition, the simultaneous patient's scores were significantly better than sequential similar patient's scores. Conclusion: The main finding of our study was that bilateral cochlear implants (BiCI) are better than unilateral cochlear implant, and simultaneous BiCI is preferred than the sequential cochlear implant even after escaping the early stage of language development.

show abstract

Binaural Pitch Fusion in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Abstract: Bilateral CI listeners have abnormally broad fusion, similar to hearing aid and bimodal CI listeners. This broad fusion may explain the variability of binaural benefits for speech perception in quiet and in noise in bilateral CI users.

Cited by 27 publications

References 24 publications

Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears

Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears

Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear

Bilateral cochlear implantation: simultaneous versus sequential

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About