Binaural speech unmasking and localization in noise with bilateral cochlear implants using envelope and fine-timing based strategies.

Four adult bilateral cochlear implant users, with good open-set sentence recognition, were tested with three different sound coding strategies for binaural speech unmasking and their ability to localize 100 and 500 Hz click trains in noise. Two of the strategies tested were envelope-based strategies that are clinically widely used. The third was a research strategy that additionally preserved fine-timing cues at low frequencies. Speech reception thresholds were determined in diotic noise for diotic and interaurally time-delayed speech using direct audio input to a bilateral research processor. Localization in noise was assessed in the free field. Overall results, for both speech and localization tests, were similar with all three strategies. None provided a binaural speech unmasking advantage due to the application of 700 micros interaural time delay to the speech signal, and localization results showed similar response patterns across strategies that were well accounted for by the use of broadband interaural level cues. The data from both experiments combined indicate that, in contrast to normal hearing, timing cues available from natural head-width delays do not offer binaural advantages with present methods of electrical stimulation, even when fine-timing cues are explicitly coded.

[1]  I. Hirsh The Influence of Interaural Phase on Interaural Summation and Inhibition , 1948 .

[2]  L. Rayleigh,et al.  XII. On our perception of sound direction , 1907 .

[3]  J. C. R. Licklider,et al.  The Influence of Interaural Phase Relations upon the Masking of Speech by White Noise , 1948 .

[4]  L. Rabiner,et al.  Predicting binaural gain in intelligibility and release from masking for speech. , 1967, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Binaural Cochlear Implants Placed during the Same Operation , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[6]  H. S. Colburn,et al.  An auditory‐nerve model for interaural time discrimination of high‐frequency complex stimuli , 1976 .

[7]  J. Müller,et al.  Speech Understanding in Quiet and Noise in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant System , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[8]  William M. Hartmann,et al.  Localization of sound in rooms. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  N. I. Durlach Note on Binaural Masking‐Level Differences at High Frequencies , 1964 .

[10]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[11]  R. Tyler,et al.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  W M Hartmann,et al.  On the source-identification method. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  R. G. Klumpp,et al.  Some Measurements of Interaural Time Difference Thresholds , 1956 .

[14]  D. Grantham,et al.  Horizontal-Plane Localization of Noise and Speech Signals by Postlingually Deafened Adults Fitted With Bilateral Cochlear Implants* , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[15]  P. Van cauwenberge,et al.  Sensitivity of transient evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions to the direct effects of noise on the human cochlea. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[16]  R. V. Hoesel,et al.  Sensitivity to binaural timing in bilateral cochlear implant users. , 2007 .

[17]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Amplitude-Mapping Effects on Speech Intelligibility With Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[18]  B Hagerman,et al.  Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. , 1995, Scandinavian audiology.

[19]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Richard Van Hoesel,et al.  Sound-Direction Identification, Interaural Time Delay Discrimination, and Speech Intelligibility Advantages in Noise for a Bilateral Cochlear Implant User , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[21]  A Q Summerfield,et al.  Integration of monaural and binaural evidence of vowel formants. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  H J McDermott,et al.  A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  S van de Par,et al.  A new approach to comparing binaural masking level differences at low and high frequencies. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  John F Culling,et al.  Evidence specifically favoring the equalization-cancellation theory of binaural unmasking. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  C. Lorenzi,et al.  Sound localization in noise in normal-hearing listeners. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  F. Wightman,et al.  The dominant role of low-frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  R. V. Hoesel Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants. , 2004 .

[28]  Nathaniel I. Durlach,et al.  Chapter 11 – MODELS OF BINAURAL INTERACTION , 1978 .

[29]  A. Kohlrausch,et al.  The influence of interaural stimulus uncertainty on binaural signal detection. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.