Contralateral Masking in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Patients: A Model of Medial Olivocochlear Function Loss

Contralateral masking is the phenomenon where a masker presented to one ear affects the ability to detect a signal in the opposite ear. For normal hearing listeners, contralateral masking results in masking patterns that are both sharper and dramatically smaller in magnitude than ipsilateral masking. The goal of this study was to investigate whether medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferents are needed for the sharpness and relatively small magnitude of the contralateral masking function. To do this, bilateral cochlear implant patients were tested because, by directly stimulating the auditory nerve, cochlear implants circumvent the effects of the MOC efferents. The results indicated that, as with normal hearing listeners, the contralateral masking function was sharper than the ipsilateral masking function. However, although there was a reduction in the magnitude of the contralateral masking function compared to the ipsilateral masking function, it was relatively modest. This is in sharp contrast to the results of normal hearing listeners where the magnitude of the contralateral masking function is greatly reduced. These results suggest that MOC function may not play a large role in the sharpness of the contralateral masking function but may play a considerable role in the magnitude of the contralateral masking function.

[1]  Monica Padilla,et al.  Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users , 2013, Hearing Research.

[2]  J. Zwislocki,et al.  Frequency distribution of central masking. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Thomas Klenzner,et al.  Quality Control after Cochlear Implant Surgery by Means of Rotational Tomography , 2005, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  Jean K. Moore,et al.  The Human Olivocochlear System: Organization and Development , 1999, Audiology and Neurotology.

[5]  L Collet,et al.  Influence of focused auditory attention on cochlear activity in humans. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[6]  Joerg Pesch,et al.  Electrophysiological Spread of Excitation and Pitch Perception for Dual and Single Electrodes Using the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[7]  Mark Downing,et al.  Current Steering Creates Additional Pitch Percepts in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2007, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[8]  D. Prasher,et al.  Contralateral suppression of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions and neuro-otology. , 1994, British journal of audiology.

[9]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Channel Interaction in Cochlear Implant Users Evaluated Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[10]  L. Robles,et al.  Two-tone suppression in the basilar membrane of the cochlea: mechanical basis of auditory-nerve rate suppression. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  Leonid M Litvak,et al.  Excitation Patterns of Simultaneous and Sequential Dual-Electrode Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L). , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  G M Clark,et al.  Radiologic evaluation of multichannel intracochlear implant insertion depth. , 1993, The American journal of otology.

[14]  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.

[15]  Chris James,et al.  Contralateral Masking in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear , 2001, Audiology and Neurotology.

[16]  Jozef J. Zwislocki,et al.  A Theory of Central Auditory Masking and Its Partial Validation , 1972 .

[17]  R V Shannon,et al.  Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Rand R. Wilcox,et al.  The goals and strategies of robust methods , 1998 .

[19]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Perception of across-frequency interaural level differences. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  David M Erceg-Hurn,et al.  Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[21]  J. Guinan Olivocochlear Efferents: Anatomy, Physiology, Function, and the Measurement of Efferent Effects in Humans , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[22]  G M Clark,et al.  Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  M. Eybalin,et al.  Efferent neurotransmitters in the human cochlea and vestibule , 2007, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[25]  David M. Landsberger,et al.  Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients , 2009, Hearing Research.

[26]  William F. House,et al.  Cochlear Implants: Histopathologic Findings Related to Performance in 16 Human Temporal Bones , 1991, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[27]  Xin Luo,et al.  Pitch contour identification with combined place and temporal cues using cochlear implants. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Becky B. Poon,et al.  Sensitivity to interaural time difference with bilateral cochlear implants: Development over time and effect of interaural electrode spacing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Xin Luo,et al.  Encoding pitch contours using current steering. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  D. Landsberger,et al.  Multidimensional scaling between acoustic and electric stimuli in cochlear implant users with contralateral hearing , 2013, Hearing Research.