The Effect of Different Cochlear Implant Microphones on Acoustic Hearing Individuals' Binaural Benefits for Speech Perception in Noise

Objectives: Cochlear implant microphones differ in placement, frequency response, and other characteristics such as whether they are directional. Although normal-hearing (NH) individuals are often used as controls in studies examining cochlear implant users' binaural benefits, the considerable differences across cochlear implant microphones make such comparisons potentially misleading. The goal of this study was to examine binaural benefits for speech perception in noise for NH individuals using stimuli processed by head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) based on the different cochlear implant microphones. Design: HRTFs were created for different cochlear implant microphones and used to test participants on the Hearing in Noise Test. Experiment 1 tested cochlear implant users and NH individuals with HRTF-processed stimuli and with sound field (SF) testing to determine whether the HRTFs adequately simulated SF testing. Experiment 2 determined the measurement error and performance-intensity function for the Hearing in Noise Test with NH individuals listening to stimuli processed with the various HRTFs. Experiment 3 compared NH listeners' performance across HRTFs to determine how the HRTFs affected performance. Experiment 4 evaluated binaural benefits for NH listeners using the various HRTFs, including ones that were modified to investigate the contributions of interaural time and level cues. Results: The results indicated that the HRTFs adequately simulated SF testing for the Hearing in Noise Test. They also demonstrated that the test-retest reliability and performance-intensity function were consistent across HRTFs, and that the measurement error for the test was 1.3 dB, with a change in signal-to-noise ratio of 1 dB reflecting a 10% change in intelligibility. There were significant differences in performance when using the various HRTFs, with particularly good thresholds for the HRTF based on the directional microphone when the speech and masker were spatially separated, emphasizing the importance of measuring binaural benefits separately for each HRTF. Evaluation of binaural benefits indicated that binaural squelch and spatial release from masking were found for all HRTFs, and binaural summation was found for all but one HRTF, although binaural summation was less robust than the other types of binaural benefits. In addition, the results indicated that neither interaural time nor level cues dominated binaural benefits for the NH participants. Conclusions: This study provides a means to measure the degree to which cochlear implant microphones affect acoustic hearing with respect to speech perception in noise. It also provides measures that can be used to evaluate the independent contributions of interaural time and level cues. These measures provide tools that can aid researchers in understanding and improving binaural benefits in acoustic hearing individuals listening via cochlear implant microphones.

[1]  R R Coles,et al.  Binaural advantages in hearing of speech , 1971, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[2]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users Compared on Speech Perception in Noise , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[3]  H. Keselman,et al.  Modern robust data analysis methods: measures of central tendency. , 2003, Psychological methods.

[4]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Time-Efficient Algorithms for Two Highly Robust Estimators of Scale , 1992 .

[5]  Sha Liu,et al.  Development of the Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test (MHINT) , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[6]  D R Begault,et al.  Headphone Localization of Speech , 1993, Human factors.

[7]  Francesco Pavani,et al.  Hearing again with two ears: Recovery of spatial hearing after bilateral cochlear implantation , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  H. Lilliefors.  On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown , 1967 .

[9]  P Nopp,et al.  Sound Localization and Sensitivity to Interaural Cues in Bilateral Users of the Med-El Combi 40/40+Cochlear Implant System , 2005, Otology and Neurotology.

[10]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  The role of head-induced interaural time and level differences in the speech reception threshold for multiple interfering sound sources. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  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.

[12]  Andrew J Vermiglio,et al.  The American English Hearing in Noise Test , 2008, International journal of audiology.

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

[14]  Emily Buss,et al.  Hearing-in-Noise Benefits After Bilateral Simultaneous Cochlear Implantation Continue to Improve 4 Years After Implantation , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[15]  R. V. van Hoesel.  Exploring the Benefits of Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[16]  J. Culling,et al.  The role of head-related time and level cues in the unmasking of speech in noise and competing speech , 2005 .

[17]  F L Wightman,et al.  Localization using nonindividualized head-related transfer functions. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  J. C. Middlebrooks.  Virtual localization improved by scaling nonindividualized external-ear transfer functions in frequency. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Sigfrid D Soli,et al.  Evaluation of binaural functions in bilateral cochlear implant users , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[20]  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.

[21]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Binaural masking level difference for speech signals in noise. , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[23]  D D Dirks,et al.  Subjective judgements of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[24]  Robert F Labadie,et al.  Interaural Time and Level Difference Thresholds for Acoustically Presented Signals in Post-Lingually Deafened Adults Fitted with Bilateral Cochlear Implants Using CIS+ Processing , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[25]  H J Keselman,et al.  A generally robust approach to hypothesis testing in independent and correlated groups designs. , 2003, Psychophysiology.

[26]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  R M Cox,et al.  Demonstration of Binaural Advantage in Audiometric Test Rooms , 1981, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Comparison of Speech Recognition and Localization Performance in Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users Matched on Duration of Deafness and Age at Implantation , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[29]  Rand R. Wilcox,et al.  Can tests for treatment group equality be improved?: The bootstrap and trimmed means conjecture , 1998 .

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

[31]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Listener weighting of cues for lateral angle: the duplex theory of sound localization revisited. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[33]  Sigfrid D Soli,et al.  Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the Hearing in Noise Test , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[34]  James Algina,et al.  A generally robust approach for testing hypotheses and setting confidence intervals for effect sizes. , 2008, Psychological methods.

[35]  Yoichi Ando,et al.  On the simulation of sound localization , 1980 .

[36]  P. Rousseeuw,et al.  Alternatives to the Median Absolute Deviation , 1993 .

[37]  Richard S. Tyler,et al.  Speech Perception and Localization With Adults With Bilateral Sequential Cochlear Implants , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[38]  Steven van de Par,et al.  Sound segregation based on temporal envelope structure and binaural cues. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  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.

[40]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Benefits of Bilateral Electrical Stimulation with the Nucleus Cochlear Implant in Adults: 6-Month Postoperative Results , 2004, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[41]  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.

[42]  D. Rom.  A sequentially rejective test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni inequality , 1990 .

[43]  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.

[44]  Sigfrid D Soli,et al.  Development of the Cantonese Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT) , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[45]  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.

[46]  Philip X. Joris,et al.  Interaural Correlation Fails to Account for Detection in a Classic Binaural Task: Dynamic ITDs Dominate N0Sπ Detection , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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

[48]  Thomas Baer,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing‐impaired and normally hearing people , 1997 .

[49]  Jill B Firszt,et al.  More Challenging Speech-Perception Tasks Demonstrate Binaural Benefit in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[50]  Robert F Labadie,et al.  Speech Recognition for Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Modes in the Presence of Uncorrelated Noise Sources , 2006, Ear and hearing.