Having two ears can facilitate or interfere with the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers for bilateral and single-sided deafness cochlear-implant listeners

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (5) ◽  
pp. 4031-4031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua G. Bernstein ◽  
Matthew Goupell ◽  
Jessica Wess ◽  
Olga Stakhovskaya ◽  
Douglas S. Brungart
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Perceptual Separation

The Effect of Nonlinear Amplitude Growth on the Speech Perception Benefits Provided by a Single-Sided Vocoder

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica M. Wess ◽  
Joshua G. W. Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Functions ◽  
Spatial Configuration ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Compression And Expansion ◽  
Interaural Difference ◽  
Interaural Differences ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Perceptual Separation ◽  
Loudness Growth

PurposeFor listeners with single-sided deafness, a cochlear implant (CI) can improve speech understanding by giving the listener access to the ear with the better target-to-masker ratio (TMR; head shadow) or by providing interaural difference cues to facilitate the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers (squelch). CI simulations presented to listeners with normal hearing examined how these benefits could be affected by interaural differences in loudness growth in a speech-on-speech masking task.MethodExperiment 1 examined a target–masker spatial configuration where the vocoded ear had a poorer TMR than the nonvocoded ear. Experiment 2 examined the reverse configuration. Generic head-related transfer functions simulated free-field listening. Compression or expansion was applied independently to each vocoder channel (power-law exponents: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2).ResultsCompression reduced the benefit provided by the vocoder ear in both experiments. There was some evidence that expansion increased squelch in Experiment 1 but reduced the benefit in Experiment 2 where the vocoder ear provided a combination of head-shadow and squelch benefits.ConclusionsThe effects of compression and expansion are interpreted in terms of envelope distortion and changes in the vocoded-ear TMR (for head shadow) or changes in perceived target–masker spatial separation (for squelch). The compression parameter is a candidate for clinical optimization to improve single-sided deafness CI outcomes.

scholarly journals Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till F. Jakob ◽  
Iva Speck ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Rauch ◽  
Frederike Hassepass ◽  
Manuel C. Ketterer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Sound Localisation ◽  
Therapy Option ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Objective Hearing Tests

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Methods Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. Results 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. Conclusion The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant

2016 ◽  
Vol 342 ◽  
pp. 124-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen P.M. Peters ◽  
Edwin Bennink ◽  
Wilko Grolman ◽  
Gijsbert A. van Zanten
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Pitch Matching ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

scholarly journals Reducing interaural tonotopic mismatch preserves binaural unmasking in cochlear implant simulations of single-sided deafness

2021 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. 2316-2326
Author(s):  
Elad Sagi ◽  
Mahan Azadpour ◽  
Jonathan Neukam ◽  
Nicole Hope Capach ◽  
Mario A. Svirsky
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Evaluating the Long-Term Hearing Outcomes of Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. e575-e580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayse Távora-Vieira ◽  
Gunesh P. Rajan ◽  
Paul Van de Heyning ◽  
Griet Mertens
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Hearing Outcomes

scholarly journals Interaural Level Difference Cues Determine Sound Source Localization by Single-Sided Deaf Patients Fit with a Cochlear Implant

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Dorman ◽  
Daniel Zeitler ◽  
Sarah J. Cook ◽  
Louise Loiselle ◽  
William A. Yost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Source Localization ◽  
Sound Source ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sound Source Localization ◽  
Interaural Level Difference ◽  
Relative Localization ◽  
Normal Limits ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

In this report, we used filtered noise bands to constrain listeners' access to interaural level differences (ILDs) and interaural time differences (ITDs) in a sound source localization task. The samples of interest were listeners with single-sided deafness (SSD) who had been fit with a cochlear implant in the deafened ear (SSD-CI). The comparison samples included listeners with normal hearing and bimodal hearing, i.e. with a cochlear implant in 1 ear and low-frequency acoustic hearing in the other ear. The results indicated that (i) sound source localization was better in the SSD-CI condition than in the SSD condition, (ii) SSD-CI patients rely on ILD cues for sound source localization, (iii) SSD-CI patients show functional localization abilities within 1-3 months after device activation and (iv) SSD-CI patients show better sound source localization than bimodal CI patients but, on average, poorer localization than normal-hearing listeners. One SSD-CI patient showed a level of localization within normal limits. We provide an account for the relative localization abilities of the groups by reference to the differences in access to ILD cues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document