The Effect of Interaural Fluctuation Rate on Correlation Change Discrimination

Goupell, Matthew J.; Litovsky, Ruth Y.

doi:10.1007/s10162-013-0426-8

Cited by 18 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All of the CI listeners reported that they primarily used roughness cues. This is in contrast to NH listeners who, in previous studies, reported that they primarily used loudness cues (Goupell, 2012;Goupell and Litovsky, 2014).…”

Section: Monaural Stimulus Metricscontrasting

confidence: 73%

“…Ten listeners performed the 50-Hz BW conditions; six listeners performed the 10-Hz BW conditions. Unlike Goupell (2012) and Goupell and Litovsky (2014) where an adaptive procedure was used to measure thresholds in NH listeners, a method of constant stimuli was used for the CI listeners to ensure a monotonically increasing psychometric function. Psychometric functions with at least three points were made, each point consisting of at least 40 trials.…”

Section: Bmld Measurements At 1000 Pps (Modulated Pulse Trains)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At least three-point psychometric functions with at least 40 trials per point were measured. In conditions where PC ¼ 70.7% was not achieved, the JND was set to a value of Da ¼ 1.1, corresponding to the value used in previous studies that performed similar measurements in NH listeners (Goupell, 2012;Goupell and Litovsky, 2014). In all analyses, we did not take into account the cochlear place of stimulation because of the large variability across place within single CI listeners, which often results in a lack of significant effect of place (e.g., Litovsky et al, 2010;Lu et al, 2010).…”

Section: A Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dual-channel diotic narrowband analog Gaussian noises (No) started as the same stimuli that were used in Goupell (2012) and Goupell and Litovsky (2014). Stimuli were 500 ms in duration and temporally shaped by a Tukey window with a rise-fall time of 10 ms.…”

Section: Noise Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In normal-hearing (NH) listeners, interaural decorrelation is perceived as a diffuseness in the head (Whitmer et al, 2012). The sensitivity of listeners to changes in interaural correlation appears to be closely related to the binaural masking level difference (BMLD) (Koehnke et al, 1986;Goupell and Litovsky, 2014), which can be considered a simplification of the situation where listeners demonstrate improved speech understanding in noise for spatially separated talkers vs co-located talkers (e.g., Bronkhorst and Plomp, 1988;Culling et al, 2004;Hawley et al, 2004). In fact, binaural models that incorporate BMLD sensitivity can make extremely accurate speech-in-noise intelligibility predictions for a variety of spatial configurations, types of listening environments, and types of listeners (Lavandier and Culling, 2010;Culling et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sensitivity to interaural envelope correlation changes in bilateral cochlear-implant users

Goupell

Litovsky

2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Provision of bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) to people who are deaf is partially justified by improved abilities to understand speech in noise when comparing bilateral vs unilateral listening conditions. However, bilateral CI listeners generally show only monaural head shadow with little improvement in speech understanding due to binaural unmasking. Sensitivity to change in interaural envelope correlation, which is related to binaural speech unmasking, was investigated. Bilateral CI users were tested with bilaterally synchronized processors at single, pitch-matched electrode pairs. First, binaural masking level differences (BMLDs) were measured using 1000 pulse-per-second (pps) carriers, yielding BMLDs of 11.1 6 6.5 and 8.5 6 4.2 dB for 10-and 50-Hz bandwidth masking noises, respectively. Second, envelope correlation change just-noticeable differences (JNDs) were measured. Stimuli presented at 1000 pps yielded lower JNDs than those presented at 100 pps. Furthermore, perfectly correlated reference stimuli produced lower JNDs than uncorrelated references, and uncorrelated references generally produced immeasurable JNDs. About 25% of JNDs measured in the CI listeners were in the range of JNDs observed in normal-hearing listeners presented CI simulations. In conclusion, CI listeners can perceive changes in interaural envelope correlation, but the poor performance may be a major limiting factor in binaural unmasking tested to date in realistic listening environments.

show abstract

Section: Monaural Stimulus Metricscontrasting

confidence: 73%

Section: Bmld Measurements At 1000 Pps (Modulated Pulse Trains)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Noise Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sensitivity to interaural envelope correlation changes in bilateral cochlear-implant users

Goupell

Litovsky

2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Binaural hearing with electrical stimulation

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bilateral cochlear implantation is becoming a standard of care in many clinics. While much benefit has been shown through bilateral implantation, patients who have bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) still do not perform as well as normal hearing listeners in sound localization and understanding speech in noisy environments. This difference in performance can arise from a number of different factors, including the areas of hardware and engineering, surgical precision and pathology of the auditory system in deaf persons. While surgical precision and individual pathology are factors that are beyond careful control, improvements can be made in the areas of clinical practice and the engineering of binaural speech processors. These improvements should be grounded in a good understanding of the sensitivities of bilateral CI patients to the acoustic binaural cues that are important to normal hearing listeners for sound localization and speech in noise understanding. To this end, we review the current state-of-the-art in the understanding of the sensitivities of bilateral CI patients to binaural cues in electric hearing, and highlight the important issues and challenges as they relate to clinical practice and the development of new binaural processing strategies.

show abstract