Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants
Top Cited Papers
- 28 February 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Acoustical Society of America (ASA) in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Vol. 113 (3) , 1617-1630
- https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1539520
Abstract
Five bilateral cochlear implant users were tested for their localization abilities and speech understanding in noise, for both monaural and binaural listening conditions. They also participated in lateralization tasks to assess the impact of variations in interaural time delays (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs) for electrical pulse trains under direct computer control. The localization task used pink noise bursts presented from an eight-loudspeaker array spanning an arc of approximately 108° in front of the listeners at ear level (0-degree elevation). Subjects showed large benefits from bilateral device use compared to either side alone. Typical root-mean-square (rms) averaged errors across all eight loudspeakers in the array were about 10° for bilateral device use and ranged from 20° to 60° using either ear alone. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for sentences presented from directly in front of the listeners (0°) in spectrally matching speech-weighted noise at either 0°, +90° or −90° for four subjects out of five tested who could perform the task. For noise to either side, bilateral device use showed a substantial benefit over unilateral device use when noise was ipsilateral to the unilateral device. This was primarily because of monaural head-shadow effects, which resulted in robust SRT improvements of about 4 to 5 dB when ipsilateral and contralateral noise positions were compared. The additional benefit of using both ears compared to the shadowed ear (i.e., binaural unmasking) was only 1 or 2 dB and less robust Results from the lateralization studies showed consistently good sensitivity to ILDs; better than the smallest level adjustment available in the implants (0.17 dB) for some subjects. Sensitivity to ITDs was moderate on the other hand, typically of the order of 100 μs. ITD sensitivity deteriorated rapidly when stimulation rates for unmodulated pulse-trains increased above a few hundred Hz but at 800 pps showed sensitivity comparable to 50-pps pulse-trains when a 50-Hz modulation was applied. In our opinion, these results clearly demonstrate important benefits are available from bilateral implantation, both for localizing sounds (in quiet) and for listening in noise when signal and noise sources are spatially separated. The data do indicate, however, that effects of interaural timing cues are weaker than those from interaural level cues and according to our psychophysical findings rely on the availability of low-rate information below a few hundred Hz.
Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Binaural Cochlear Implants Placed during the Same OperationOtology & Neurotology, 2002
- Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environmentThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1999
- Open Earmold Fittings for Improving Aided Auditory Localization for Sensorineural Hearing Losses with Good High-Frequency HearingEar & Hearing, 1998
- Frequency dependence of binaural performance in listeners with impaired binaural hearingThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1992
- Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listenersThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1989
- On the minimum audible angle—A decision theory approachThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1989
- The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noiseThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1988
- Sound Localization in Subjects with Impaired HearingActa Oto-Laryngologica, 1983
- Detectability of interaural delay in high-frequency complex waveformsThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1974
- The Effect of Spatially Separated Sound Sources on Speech IntelligibilityJournal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1969