Sensitivity to Interaural Level and Envelope Time Differences of Two Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listeners Using Clinical Sound Processors

Objectives: To assess the sensitivity of two bilateral cochlear implant users to interaural level and time differences (ILDs and ITDs) for various signals presented through the auxiliary inputs of clinical sound processors that discard fine timing information and only preserve envelope cues. Design: In a lateralization discrimination experiment, the just noticeable difference (JND) for ILDs and envelope ITDs was measured by means of an adaptive 2-AFC method. Different stimuli were used, including click trains at varying repetition rates, a speech fragment, and noise bursts. For one cochlear implant listener and one stimulus, the sensitivity to envelope ITDs was also determined with the method of constant stimuli. The dependency of ILD-JNDs on the interaural place difference was studied with stimulation at single electrode pairs by using sinusoidal input signals in combination with appropriate single-channel processor fittings. In a lateralization position experiment, subjects were required to use a visual pointer on a computer screen to indicate in-the-head positions for blocks of stimuli containing either ILD or ITD cues. All stimuli were loudness balanced (before applying ILD) and fed directly into the auxiliary inputs of the BTE processors (TEMPO+, Med-El Corp.). The automatic gain control and the processors’ microphones were deactivated. Results: Both cochlear implant listeners were highly sensitive to ILDs in all broadband stimuli used; JNDs approached those of normal-hearing listeners. Pitch-matched single electrode pairs showed significantly lower ILD-JNDs than pitch-mismatched electrode pairs. Envelope ITD-JNDs of cochlear implant listeners obtained with the adaptive method were substantially higher and showed a higher test-retest variability than waveform ITD-JNDs of normal-hearing control listeners and envelope ITD-JNDs of normal-hearing listeners reported in the literature for comparable signals. The envelope ITD-JNDs for the click trains were significantly lower than for the speech token or the noise bursts. The best envelope ITD-JND measured was ca. 250 &mgr;s for the click train at 100 cycles per sec. Direct measurement of the psychometric function for envelope ITD by the method of constant stimuli showed discrimination above chance level down to 150 &mgr;s. The lateralization position experiment showed that both ILDs and envelope ITDs can lead to monotonic changes in lateral percept. Conclusions: The two cochlear implant users tested showed strong effects of ILDs in various broadband stimuli with respect to JNDs as well as lateralization position. The high dependency of ILD-JNDs on the interaural pitch difference suggests the potential importance of pitch-matched assignment of electrodes in the two ears by the speech processors. Envelope ITDs appear to be more ambiguous cues than ILDs, as reflected by the higher and more variable JNDs compared with normal-hearing listeners. The envelope ITD-JNDs of cochlear implant listeners depended on the stimulus.

[1]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Three-Month Results with Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[2]  M Florentine,et al.  Critical band in auditory lateralization. , 1976, Sensory processes.

[3]  G M Clark,et al.  Fusion and lateralization study with two binaural cochlear implant patients. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[4]  W. Yost,et al.  Discrimination of interaural differences of level as a function of frequency. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Jan Helms,et al.  Speech Reception Thresholds Obtained in a Symmetrical Four-Loudspeaker Arrangement from Bilateral Users of MED-EL Cochlear Implants , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

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

[8]  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.

[9]  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.

[10]  R. Plomp,et al.  Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  M. Hildesheimer,et al.  Mapping lateralization of click trains in younger and older populations , 2002, Hearing Research.

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

[13]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.

[14]  D T Lawson,et al.  Bilateral cochlear implants controlled by a single speech processor. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[15]  H S Colburn,et al.  Effects of Reference Interaural Time and Intensity Differences on Binaural Performance in Listeners with Normal and Impaired Hearing , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[16]  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.

[17]  G. Clark,et al.  Psychophysical and speech perception studies: a case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  B. McA. Sayers,et al.  Acoustic‐Image Lateralization Judgments with Binaural Transients , 1964 .

[19]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

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

[21]  C Trahiotis,et al.  Detection of interaural delay in high-frequency sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tones, two-tone complexes, and bands of noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  B. McA. Sayers,et al.  Lateralization Judgments and the Nature of Binaural Acoustic Images , 1965 .

[23]  Nathaniel I. Durlach,et al.  Binaural Directional Hearing—Impairments and Aids , 1987 .

[24]  D T Lawson,et al.  Design and evaluation of a continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processing strategy for multichannel cochlear implants. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[25]  H S Colburn,et al.  Model for auditory localization. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  H Steven Colburn,et al.  Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  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.