Spatial Release From Informational and Energetic Masking in Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.

Purpose Spatially separating speech and background noise improves speech understanding in normal-hearing listeners, an effect referred to as spatial release from masking (SRM). In cochlear implant (CI) users, SRM has often been demonstrated using asymmetric noise configurations, which maximize benefit from head shadow and the potential availability of binaural cues. In contrast, SRM in symmetrical configurations has been minimal to absent in CI users. We examined the interaction between two types of maskers (informational and energetic) and SRM in bimodal and bilateral CI users. We hypothesized that SRM would be absent or "negative" using symmetrically separated noise maskers. Second, we hypothesized that bimodal listeners would exhibit greater release from informational masking due to access to acoustic information in the non-CI ear. Method Participants included 10 bimodal and 10 bilateral CI users. Speech understanding in noise was tested in 24 conditions: 3 spatial configurations (S0N0, S0N45&315, S0N90&270) × 2 masker types (speech, signal-correlated noise) × 2 listening configurations (best-aided, CI-alone) × 2 talker gender conditions (different-gender, same-gender). Results In support of our first hypothesis, both groups exhibited negative SRM with increasing spatial separation. In opposition to our second hypothesis, both groups exhibited similar magnitudes of release from informational masking. The magnitude of release was greater for bimodal listeners, though this difference failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions Both bimodal and bilateral CI recipients exhibited negative SRM. This finding is consistent with CI signal processing limitations, the audiologic factors associated with SRM, and known effects of behind-the-ear microphone technology. Though release from informational masking was not significantly different across groups, the magnitude of release was greater for bimodal listeners. This suggests that bimodal listeners may be at least marginally more susceptible to informational masking than bilateral CI users, though further research is warranted.

[1]  James B. Dewey,et al.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length cues on sentence segregation by listeners with hearing loss. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement. , 2018, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  Mathias Dietz,et al.  Better-ear glimpsing with symmetrically-placed interferers in bilateral cochlear implant users. , 2016, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  B. Laback,et al.  Perception and coding of interaural time differences with bilateral cochlear implants , 2015, Hearing Research.

[5]  J. Wouters,et al.  Bimodal listeners are not sensitive to interaural time differences in unmodulated low-frequency stimuli (L). , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Patrick M Zurek,et al.  A method for degrading sound localization while preserving binaural advantages for speech reception in noise. , 2019, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Timothy J Davis,et al.  Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise. , 2015, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  Martin Cooke,et al.  A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Alan Kan,et al.  The Effect of Simulated Interaural Frequency Mismatch on Speech Understanding and Spatial Release From Masking , 2018, Ear and hearing.

[10]  J. Culling,et al.  Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Using ILD or ITD Cues for Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in a Complex Listening Environment by Listeners With Bilateral and With Hearing-Preservation Cochlear Implants. , 2016, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  Teresa Y. C. Ching,et al.  Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[13]  John F Culling,et al.  The Benefit of Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation to Speech Intelligibility in Noise , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Multicenter U.S. Bilateral MED-EL Cochlear Implantation Study: Speech Perception over the First Year of Use , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Sara M. Misurelli,et al.  Spatial release from masking in children with normal hearing and with bilateral cochlear implants: effect of interferer asymmetry. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  M. Dorman,et al.  Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient , 2019, Ear and hearing.

[17]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Release from informational masking in a monaural competing-speech task with vocoded copies of the maskers presented contralaterally. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Bernhard Laback,et al.  Sensitivity to Interaural Level and Envelope Time Differences of Two Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listeners Using Clinical Sound Processors , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[19]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  G. Kidd,et al.  The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Informational masking: counteracting the effects of stimulus uncertainty by decreasing target-masker similarity. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Justin M Aronoff,et al.  The Effect of Different Cochlear Implant Microphones on Acoustic Hearing Individuals' Binaural Benefits for Speech Perception in Noise , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Variability and uncertainty in masking by competing speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Kostas Kokkinakis Binaural Speech Understanding With Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Reverberation. , 2018, American journal of audiology.

[25]  Aaron Parkinson,et al.  Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Multicenter Clinical Study , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  Spatial release from masking in children with bilateral cochlear implants and with normal hearing: Effect of target-interferer similarity. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Kostas Kokkinakis,et al.  Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  D S Brungart,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  B. Seeber,et al.  Localization cues with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: effect of location and type of interferer. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  J. M. Festen,et al.  Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. , 1984 .

[32]  Á. Ramos,et al.  Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: A 6-month comparative study , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[33]  R. Gifford,et al.  Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception. , 2015, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[34]  Alan Kan,et al.  Spatial attention in bilateral cochlear-implant users. , 2016, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Justin M Aronoff,et al.  The use of interaural time and level difference cues by bilateral cochlear implant users. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  Malcolm Slaney,et al.  An Efficient Implementation of the Patterson-Holdsworth Auditory Filter Bank , 1997 .

[37]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Availability of Binaural Cues for Bilateral Implant Recipients and Bimodal Listeners with and without Preserved Hearing in the Implanted Ear , 2013, Audiology and Neurotology.

[38]  D. Grantham,et al.  Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  S. G. Nooteboom,et al.  Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices , 1982 .

[40]  R A Lutfi,et al.  How much masking is informational masking? , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  P. Nopp,et al.  Head Shadow, Squelch, and Summation Effects in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[42]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  Spatial Hearing and Speech Intelligibility in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[43]  Timothy J Davis,et al.  Spatial Release From Masking in Adults With Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Effects of Distracter Azimuth and Microphone Location. , 2018, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

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

[45]  Martin Walger,et al.  Head shadow, squelch, and summation effects with an energetic or informational masker in bilateral and bimodal CI users. , 2014, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[46]  Alan Kan,et al.  Binaural hearing with electrical stimulation , 2015, Hearing Research.

[47]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[48]  Virginia Best,et al.  The effect of better-ear glimpsing on spatial release from masking. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  Yi Hu,et al.  Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Influence of contralateral acoustic hearing on adult bimodal outcomes after cochlear implantation , 2016, International journal of audiology.

[51]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a divided speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  Matthew J Goupell,et al.  Contralateral Interference Caused by Binaurally Presented Competing Speech in Adult Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[53]  Nandini Iyer,et al.  Better-ear glimpsing efficiency with symmetrically-placed interfering talkers. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  Spatial Speech-in-Noise Performance in Bimodal and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users , 2019, Trends in hearing.

[55]  Marjorie R. Leek,et al.  Informational masking and auditory attention , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[56]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Combining energetic and informational masking for speech identification. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Modulation Enhancement in the Electrical Signal Improves Perception of Interaural Time Differences with Bimodal Stimulation , 2014, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[58]  Richard S Tyler,et al.  Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[59]  Jourdan T Holder,et al.  Current Profile of Adults Presenting for Preoperative Cochlear Implant Evaluation , 2018, Trends in hearing.

[60]  C. Darwin,et al.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.