Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(08): 659-671
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17012
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners’ Ability to Perceive Minimal Audible Angle Differences

Ashley Zaleski-King
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC
,
Matthew J. Goupell
†   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD
,
Dragana Barac-Cikoja
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC
,
Matthew Bakke
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

31 May 2018

05 June 2018

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Bilateral inputs should ideally improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise. However, for many bimodal listeners [i.e., individuals using a cochlear implant (CI) with a contralateral hearing aid (HA)], such bilateral benefits are at best, inconsistent. The degree to which clinically available HA and CI devices can function together to preserve interaural time and level differences (ITDs and ILDs, respectively) enough to support the localization of sound sources is a question with important ramifications for speech understanding in complex acoustic environments.

Purpose:

To determine if bimodal listeners are sensitive to changes in spatial location in a minimum audible angle (MAA) task.

Research Design:

Repeated-measures design.

Study Sample:

Seven adult bimodal CI users (28–62 years). All listeners reported regular use of digital HA technology in the nonimplanted ear.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Seven bimodal listeners were asked to balance the loudness of prerecorded single syllable utterances. The loudness-balanced stimuli were then presented via direct audio inputs of the two devices with an ITD applied. The task of the listener was to determine the perceived difference in processing delay (the interdevice delay [IDD]) between the CI and HA devices. Finally, virtual free-field MAA performance was measured for different spatial locations both with and without inclusion of the IDD correction, which was added with the intent to perceptually synchronize the devices.

Results:

During the loudness-balancing task, all listeners required increased acoustic input to the HA relative to the CI most comfortable level to achieve equal interaural loudness. During the ITD task, three listeners could perceive changes in intracranial position by distinguishing sounds coming from the left or from the right hemifield; when the CI was delayed by 0.73, 0.67, or 1.7 msec, the signal lateralized from one side to the other. When MAA localization performance was assessed, only three of the seven listeners consistently achieved above-chance performance, even when an IDD correction was included. It is not clear whether the listeners who were able to consistently complete the MAA task did so via binaural comparison or by extracting monaural loudness cues. Four listeners could not perform the MAA task, even though they could have used a monaural loudness cue strategy.

Conclusions:

These data suggest that sound localization is extremely difficult for most bimodal listeners. This difficulty does not seem to be caused by large loudness imbalances and IDDs. Sound localization is best when performed via a binaural comparison, where frequency-matched inputs convey ITD and ILD information. Although low-frequency acoustic amplification with a HA when combined with a CI may produce an overlapping region of frequency-matched inputs and thus provide an opportunity for binaural comparisons for some bimodal listeners, our study showed that this may not be beneficial or useful for spatial location discrimination tasks. The inability of our listeners to use monaural-level cues to perform the MAA task highlights the difficulty of using a HA and CI together to glean information on the direction of a sound source.

Key Words

cochlear implants - hearing aids and assistive listening devices - hearing science

This study was partially supported by NIH-NIDCD Grant R01 DC014948 (M.J.G.).


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Armstrong M, Pegg P, James C, Blamey P. 1997; Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. Am J Otol 18 (6, Suppl) S140-S141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Aronoff JM, Freed DJ, Fisher LM, Pal I, Soli SD. 2011; The effect of different cochlear implant microphones on acoustic hearing individuals’ binaural benefits for speech perception in noise. Ear Hear 32 (04) 468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bernstein JG, Goupell MJ, Schuchman GI, Rivera AL, Brungart DS. 2016; Having two ears facilitates the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers for bilateral and single-sided deaf cochlear implantees. Ear Hear 37 (03) 289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brown CA. 2013; Binaural enhancement for bilateral cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 35 (05) 580-584
    Google Scholar
  • Brughera A, Dunai L, Hartmann WM. 2013; Human interaural time difference thresholds for sine tones: the high-frequency limit. J Acoust Soc Am 133 (05) 2839-2855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TY, Dillon H. 2003; Prescribing amplification for children: adult-equivalent hearing loss, real-ear aided gain, and NAL-NL1. Trends Amplif 7 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TYC, Incerti P, Hill M. 2004; Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear 25: 9-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TYC, Van Wanrooy E, Dillon H. 2007; Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review. Trends Amplif 11 (03) 161-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Crew JD, Galvin III JJ, Landsberger DM, Fu QJ. 2015; Contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to bimodal speech and music perception. PLoS One 10 (03) e0120279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Devocht EM, Janssen AML, Chalupper J, Stokroos RJ, George EL. 2017; The benefits of bimodal aiding on extended dimensions of speech perception: intelligibility, listening effort, and sound quality. Trends Hear 21: 2331216517727900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dorman MF, Gifford RH. 2010; Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 49 (12) 912-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dorman MF, Loiselle LH, Cook SJ, Yost WA, Gifford RH. 2016; Sound source localization by normal-hearing listeners, hearing-impaired listeners and cochlear implant listeners. Audiol Neurotol 21 (03) 127-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dunn C, Tyler R, Witt S. 2005; Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48: 668-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Feddersen WE, Sandel TT, Teas DC, Jeffress LA. 1957; Localization of high‐frequency tones. J Acoust Soc Am 29 (09) 988-991
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Francart T, Van den Bogaert T, Moonen M, Wouters J. 2009; a Amplification of interaural level differences improves sound localization in acoustic simulations of bimodal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 126 (06) 3209-3213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J. 2009; b Sensitivity to interaural time differences with combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10 (01) 131-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Francart T, Lenssen A, Wouters J. 2011; a Enhancement of interaural level differences improves sound localization in bimodal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 130 (05) 2817-2826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Francart T, Lenssen A, Wouters J. 2011; b Sensitivity of bimodal listeners to interaural time differences with modulated single-and multiple-channel stimuli. Audiol Neurotol 16 (02) 82-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Francart T, Lenssen A, Wouters J. 2014; Modulation enhancement in the electrical signal improves perception of interaural time differences with bimodal stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15 (04) 633-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Francart T, McDermott HJ. 2013; Psychophysics, fitting, and signal processing for combined hearing aid and cochlear implant stimulation. Ear Hear 34 (06) 685-700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Francart T, Wouters J. 2007; Perception of across-frequency interaural level differences. J Acoust Soc Am 122 (05) 2826-2831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Galvin JJ. 2004; The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 5 (03) 253-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fu QJ, Nogaki G, Galvin JJ. 2005; Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6 (02) 180-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, Zhang X, Gantz B, Froman R, Olszewski C. 2007; Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear 28: 412-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Goupell MJ. 2015; Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness. J Acoust Soc Am 137 (03) 1282-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Goupell MJ, Stoelb C, Kan A, Litovsky RY. 2013; Effect of mismatched place-of- stimulation on the salience of binaural cues in conditions that simulate bilateral cochlear- implant listening. J Acoust Soc Am 133 (04) 2272-2287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hamzavi J, Marcel Pok S, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner WD. 2004; Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear. Int J Audiol 43 (02) 61-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hillenbrand J, Getty LA, Clark MJ, Wheeler K. 1995; Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 97 (05) 3099-3111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kayser H, Ewert SD, Anemuller J, Rohdenburg T, Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. 2009; Database of multichannel in-ear and behind-the-ear head-related and binaural room impulse responses. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process 2009: 1-10
    Google Scholar
  • Kokkinakis K, Pak N. 2014; Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices. J Acoust Soc Am 135 (01) EL47-EL53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kwon BJ. 2012; AUX: a scripting language for auditory signal processing and software packages for psychoacoustic experiments and education. Behav Res Methods 44 (02) 361-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Landsberger DM, Svrakic Svrakic J, Svirsky M. 2015; The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 36 (05) e207-e213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lenssen A, Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J. 2011; Bimodal listeners are not sensitive to interaural time differences in unmodulated low-frequency stimuli (L). J Acoust Soc Am 129 (06) 3457-3460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Litovsky RY, Jones GL, Agrawal S, van Hoesel R. 2010; Effect of age at onset of deafness on binaural sensitivity in electric hearing in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 127: 400-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Macaulay EJ, Hartmann WM, Rakerd B. 2010; The acoustical bright spot and mislocalization of tones by human listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 127 (03) 1440-1449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Macpherson EA, Middlebrooks JC. 2002; Listener weighting of cues for lateral angle: the duplex theory of sound localization revisited. J Acoust Soc Am 111 (05) 2219-2236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Majdak P, Goupell MJ, Laback B. 2011; Two-dimensional localization of virtual sound sources in cochlear-implant listeners. Ear Hear 32 (02) 198-208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mills AW. 1958; On the minimum audible angle. J Acoust Soc Am 30 (04) 237-246
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mills AW. 1959; Thresholds for interaural difference in intensity. J Acoust Soc Am 31 (06) 830
    Google Scholar
  • Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A, Garcia-Ibanez L, Cavalle L, Huarte A, Estrada E. 2005; Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study. Acta Otolaryngol 125 (06) 596-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Most T, Gaon-Sivan G, Shpak T, Luntz M. 2011; Contribution of a contralateral hearing aid to perception of consonant voicing, intonation, and emotional state in adult cochlear implantees. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 17 (02) 244-258
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nittrouer S, Chapman C. 2009; The effects of bilateral electric and bimodal electric—acoustic stimulation on language development. Trends Amplif 13 (03) 190-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Olson AD, Shinn JB. 2008; A systematic review to determine the effectiveness of using amplification in conjunction with cochlear implantation. J Am Acad Audiol 19 (09) 657-671
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Potts LG, Litovsky RY. 2014; Transitioning from bimodal to bilateral cochlear implant listening: speech recognition and localization in four individuals. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (01) 79-92
    Google Scholar
  • Potts LG, Skinner MW, Litovsky RA, Strube MJ, Kuk F. 2009; Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). J Am Acad Audiol 20 (06) 353-373
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sampaio AL, Araújo MF, Oliveira CA. 2011; New criteria of indication and selection of patients to cochlear implant. Int J Otolaryngol 2011: I573968
    Google Scholar
  • Schafer EC, Amlani AM, Paiva D, Nozari L, Verret S. 2011; A meta-analysis to compare speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation. Int J Audiol 50 (12) 871-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Seeber B, Baumann U, Fastl H. 2004; Localization ability with bimodal hearing aids and bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 116: 1698-1709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shallop JK, Arndt PL, Turnacliff KA. 1992; Expanded indications for cochlear implantation: perceptual results in seven adults with residual hearing. J Speech-Language Pathol Audiol 16 (02) 141-148
    Google Scholar
  • Shaw EAG, Vaillancourt MM. 1985; Transformation of sound-pressure level from the free field to the eardrum presented in numerical form. J Acoust Soc Am 78: 1120-1123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shub DE, Carr SP, Kong Y, Colburn HS. 2008; Discrimination and identification of azimuth using spectral shape. J Acoust Soc Am 124 (05) 3132-3141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stevens SS, Newman EB. 1936; The localization of actual sources of sound. Am J Psychol 48 (02) 297-306
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Stone MA, Moore BC. 1999; Tolerable hearing aid delays. I. Estimation of limits imposed by the auditory path alone using simulated hearing losses. Ear Hear 20 (03) 352-388
    Google Scholar
  • Stone MA, Moore BC. 2003; Tolerable hearing aid delays. III. Effects on speech production and perception of across-frequency variation in delay. Ear Hear 24 (02) 175-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sucher CM, McDermott HJ. 2009; Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants Int 10 (S1) 96-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Svirsky MA, Silveira A, Neuburger H, Teoh SW, Suarez H. 2004; Long-term auditory adaptation to a modified peripheral frequency map. Acta Otolaryngol 124 (04) 381-386
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • van Hoesel RJ. 2012; Contrasting benefits from contralateral implants and hearing aids in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 288 (01) 100-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Veugen LC, Chalupper J, Snik AF, van Opstal AJ, Mens LH. 2016; a Matching automatic gain control across devices in bimodal cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 37 (03) 260-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Veugen LC, Hendrikse MM, van Wanrooij MM, Agterberg MJ, Chalupper J, Mens LH, van Opstal AJ. 2016; b Horizontal sound localization in cochlear implant users with a contralateral hearing aid. Hear Res 336: 72-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Von Ilberg CA, Baumann U, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Adunka OF. 2011; Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: a review of the first decade. Audiol Neurotol 16 (2, Suppl) 1-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wightman FL, Kistler DJ. 1992; The dominant role of low‐frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. J Acoust Soc Am 91 (03) 1648-1661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zhang T, Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Saoji A. 2013; The relationship between auditory function of non-implanted ears and bimodal benefit. Ear Hear 34: 133-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar