The Effect of Sound Localization on Auditory-Only and Audiovisual Speech Recognition in a Simulated Multitalker Environment.

Information regarding sound-source spatial location provides several speech-perception benefits, including auditory spatial cues for perceptual talker separation and localization cues to face the talker to obtain visual speech information. These benefits have typically been examined separately. A real-time processing algorithm for sound-localization degradation (LocDeg) was used to investigate how spatial-hearing benefits interact in a multitalker environment. Normal-hearing adults performed auditory-only and auditory-visual sentence recognition with target speech and maskers presented from loudspeakers at -90°, -36°, 36°, or 90° azimuths. For auditory-visual conditions, one target and three masking talker videos (always spatially separated) were rendered virtually in rectangular windows at these locations on a head-mounted display. Auditory-only conditions presented blank windows at these locations. Auditory target speech (always spatially aligned with the target video) was presented in co-located speech-shaped noise (experiment 1) or with three co-located or spatially separated auditory interfering talkers corresponding to the masker videos (experiment 2). In the co-located conditions, the LocDeg algorithm did not affect auditory-only performance but reduced target orientation accuracy, reducing auditory-visual benefit. In the multitalker environment, two spatial-hearing benefits were observed: perceptually separating competing speech based on auditory spatial differences and orienting to the target talker to obtain visual speech cues. These two benefits were additive, and both were diminished by the LocDeg algorithm. Although visual cues always improved performance when the target was accurately localized, there was no strong evidence that they provided additional assistance in perceptually separating co-located competing speech. These results highlight the importance of sound localization in everyday communication.

Effect of experimentally introduced interaural frequency mismatch on sentence recognition in bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.

Bilateral cochlear-implant users experience interaural frequency mismatch because of asymmetries in array insertion and frequency-to-electrode assignment. To explore the acute perceptual consequences of such mismatch, sentence recognition in quiet was measured in nine bilateral cochlear-implant listeners as frequency allocations in the poorer ear were shifted by ±1.5, ±3, and ±4.5 mm using experimental programs. Shifts in frequency allocation >3 mm reduced bilateral sentence scores below those for the better ear alone, suggesting that the poorer ear interfered with better-ear perception. This was not a result of fewer active channels; deactivating electrodes without frequency shifting had minimal effect.

Quality of Life Impact of Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: Assessing the Interrelationship of Objective and Subjective Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect on quality of life (QOL) of cochlear implantation (CI) for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) using the first psychometrically developed CI-specific QOL tool for English-speaking patients and to assess its relationship to objective perceptual measures. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center. PATIENTS: English-speaking adults with SSD or AHL. INTERVENTIONS: Unilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) score, CI-alone speech-in-quiet (SIQ) score (CNC and AzBio), binaural speech-in-noise (SIN) threshold, binaural azimuthal sound localization (SL) error. RESULTS: At the most recent postoperative evaluation (median, 9.3 months postimplantation), 25 of 28 subjects (89%) had a CIQOL improvement, with the improvement considered clinically beneficial (>3 points) for 18 of 28 subjects (64%). Group-mean CIQOL improvement was observed at the first postoperative visit and did not change significantly thereafter. Objective perceptual measures (SL, SIQ, SIN) continued to improve over 12 months after implantation. Linear mixed-model regression analyses showed a moderate positive correlation between SIN and SIQ improvements (r = 0.50 to 0.59, p < 0.0001) and a strong positive correlation between the improvement in the two SIQ measures (r = 0.89, p < 0.0001). No significant relationships were observed ( p > 0.05) among QOL or the objective perceptual measures. CONCLUSIONS: QOL improved for the majority of subjects implanted for SSD and AHL. Different time courses for improvement in QOL and audiologic tests, combined with the lack of significant relationships among them, suggest that QOL outcomes reflect different aspects of the CI experience than those captured by speech-understanding and localization measures. SIQ may substitute for SIN when clinical constraints exist.

Effect of experimentally introduced interaural frequency mismatch on sentence recognition in bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.

Bilateral cochlear-implant users experience interaural frequency mismatch because of asymmetries in array insertion and frequency-to-electrode assignment. To explore the acute perceptual consequences of such mismatch, sentence recognition in quiet was measured in nine bilateral cochlear-implant listeners as frequency allocations in the poorer ear were shifted by ±1.5, ±3 and ±4.5 mm using experimental programs. Shifts in frequency allocation >3 mm were found to reduce bilateral sentence scores below those for the better ear alone, suggesting that the poorer ear interfered with better-ear perception. This was not a result of fewer active channels; deactivating electrodes without frequency shifting had minimal effect.

The Relationship Between Interaural Insertion-Depth Differences, Scalar Location, and Interaural Time-Difference Processing in Adult Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Sensitivity to interaural time differences (ITDs) in acoustic hearing involves comparison of interaurally frequency-matched inputs. Bilateral cochlear-implant arrays are, however, only approximately aligned in angular insertion depth and scalar location across the cochleae. Interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch therefore has the potential to impact binaural perception. ITD left-right discrimination thresholds were examined in 23 postlingually-deafened adult bilateral cochlear-implant listeners, using low-rate constant-amplitude pulse trains presented via direct stimulation to single electrodes in each ear. Angular insertion depth and scalar location measured from computed-tomography (CT) scans were used to quantify interaural mismatch, and their association with binaural performance was assessed. Number-matched electrodes displayed a median interaural insertion-depth mismatch of 18° and generally yielded best or near-best ITD discrimination thresholds. Two listeners whose discrimination thresholds did not show this pattern were confirmed via CT to have atypical array placement. Listeners with more number-matched electrode pairs located in the scala tympani displayed better thresholds than listeners with fewer such pairs. ITD tuning curves as a function of interaural electrode separation were broad; bandwidths at twice the threshold minimum averaged 10.5 electrodes (equivalent to 5.9 mm for a Cochlear-brand pre-curved array). Larger angular insertion-depth differences were associated with wider bandwidths. Wide ITD tuning curve bandwidths appear to be a product of both monopolar stimulation and angular insertion-depth mismatch. Cases of good ITD sensitivity with very wide bandwidths suggest that precise matching of insertion depth is not critical for discrimination thresholds. Further prioritizing scala tympani location at implantation should, however, benefit ITD sensitivity.

Effects of better-ear glimpsing, binaural unmasking, and spectral resolution on spatial release from masking in cochlear-implant users.

Bilateral cochlear-implant (BICI) listeners obtain less spatial release from masking (SRM; speech-recognition improvement for spatially separated vs co-located conditions) than normal-hearing (NH) listeners, especially for symmetrically placed maskers that produce similar long-term target-to-masker ratios at the two ears. Two experiments examined possible causes of this deficit, including limited better-ear glimpsing (using speech information from the more advantageous ear in each time-frequency unit), limited binaural unmasking (using interaural differences to improve signal-in-noise detection), or limited spectral resolution. Listeners had NH (presented with unprocessed or vocoded stimuli) or BICIs. Experiment 1 compared natural symmetric maskers, idealized monaural better-ear masker (IMBM) stimuli that automatically performed better-ear glimpsing, and hybrid stimuli that added worse-ear information, potentially restoring binaural cues. BICI and NH-vocoded SRM was comparable to NH-unprocessed SRM for idealized stimuli but was 14%-22% lower for symmetric stimuli, suggesting limited better-ear glimpsing ability. Hybrid stimuli improved SRM for NH-unprocessed listeners but degraded SRM for BICI and NH-vocoded listeners, suggesting they experienced across-ear interference instead of binaural unmasking. In experiment 2, increasing the number of vocoder channels did not change NH-vocoded SRM. BICI SRM deficits likely reflect a combination of across-ear interference, limited better-ear glimpsing, and poorer binaural unmasking that stems from cochlear-implant-processing limitations other than reduced spectral resolution.

Assessment methods for determining small changes in hearing performance over time.

Although the behavioral pure-tone threshold audiogram is considered the gold standard for quantifying hearing loss, assessment of speech understanding, especially in noise, is more relevant to quality of life but is only partly related to the audiogram. Metrics of speech understanding in noise are therefore an attractive target for assessing hearing over time. However, speech-in-noise assessments have more potential sources of variability than pure-tone threshold measures, making it a challenge to obtain results reliable enough to detect small changes in performance. This review examines the benefits and limitations of speech-understanding metrics and their application to longitudinal hearing assessment, and identifies potential sources of variability, including learning effects, differences in item difficulty, and between- and within-individual variations in effort and motivation. We conclude by recommending the integration of non-speech auditory tests, which provide information about aspects of auditory health that have reduced variability and fewer central influences than speech tests, in parallel with the traditional audiogram and speech-based assessments.

Computed-Tomography Estimates of Interaural Mismatch in Insertion Depth and Scalar Location in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

HYPOTHESIS: Bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) users will have a range of interaural insertion-depth mismatch because of different array placement or characteristics. Mismatch will be larger for electrodes located near the apex or outside scala tympani, or for arrays that are a mix of precurved and straight types. BACKGROUND: Brainstem superior olivary-complex neurons are exquisitely sensitive to interaural-difference cues for sound localization. Because these neurons rely on interaurally place-of-stimulation-matched inputs, interaural insertion-depth or scalar-location differences for BI-CI users could cause interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch that impairs binaural abilities. METHODS: Insertion depths and scalar locations were calculated from temporal-bone computed-tomography scans for 107 BI-CI users (27 Advanced Bionics, 62 Cochlear, 18 MED-EL). RESULTS: Median interaural insertion-depth mismatch was 23.4 degrees or 1.3 mm. Mismatch in the estimated clinically relevant range expected to impair binaural processing (>75 degrees or 3 mm) occurred for 13 to 19% of electrode pairs overall, and for at least three electrode pairs for 23 to 37% of subjects. There was a significant three-way interaction between insertion depth, scalar location, and array type. Interaural insertion-depth mismatch was largest for apical electrodes, for electrode pairs in two different scala, and for arrays that were both-precurved. CONCLUSION: Average BI-CI interaural insertion-depth mismatch was small; however, large interaural insertion-depth mismatch-with the potential to degrade spatial hearing-occurred frequently enough to warrant attention. For new BICI users, improved surgical techniques to avoid interaural insertion-depth and scalar mismatch are recommended. For existing BI-CI users with interaural insertion-depth mismatch, interaural alignment of clinical frequency tables might reduce negative spatial-hearing consequences.

Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear Implant Sound-Localization Behavior With Multiple Concurrent Sources.

OBJECTIVES: For listeners with one deaf ear and the other ear with normal/near-normal hearing (single-sided deafness [SSD]) or moderate hearing loss (asymmetric hearing loss), cochlear implants (CIs) can improve speech understanding in noise and sound-source localization. Previous SSD-CI localization studies have used a single source with artificial sounds such as clicks or random noise. While this approach provides insights regarding the auditory cues that facilitate localization, it does not capture the complex nature of localization behavior in real-world environments. This study examined SSD-CI sound localization in a complex scenario where a target sound was added to or removed from a mixture of other environmental sounds, while tracking head movements to assess behavioral strategy. DESIGN: Eleven CI users with normal hearing or moderate hearing loss in the contralateral ear completed a sound-localization task in monaural (CI-OFF) and bilateral (CI-ON) configurations. Ten of the listeners were also tested before CI activation to examine longitudinal effects. Two-second environmental sound samples, looped to create 4- or 10-sec trials, were presented in a spherical array of 26 loudspeakers encompassing ±144° azimuth and ±30° elevation at a 1-m radius. The target sound was presented alone (localize task) or concurrently with one or three additional sources presented to different loudspeakers, with the target cued by being added to (Add) or removed from (Rem) the mixture after 6 sec. A head-mounted tracker recorded movements in six dimensions (three for location, three for orientation). Mixed-model regression was used to examine target sound-identification accuracy, localization accuracy, and head movement. Angular and translational head movements were analyzed both before and after the target was switched on or off. RESULTS: Listeners showed improved localization accuracy in the CI-ON configuration, but there was no interaction with test condition and no effect of the CI on sound-identification performance. Although high-frequency hearing loss in the unimplanted ear reduced localization accuracy and sound-identification performance, the magnitude of the CI localization benefit was independent of hearing loss. The CI reduced the magnitude of gross head movements used during the task in the azimuthal rotation and translational dimensions, both while the target sound was present (in all conditions) and during the anticipatory period before the target was switched on (in the Add condition). There was no change in pre- versus post-activation CI-OFF performance. CONCLUSIONS: These results extend previous findings, demonstrating a CI localization benefit in a complex listening scenario that includes environmental and behavioral elements encountered in everyday listening conditions. The CI also reduced the magnitude of gross head movements used to perform the task. This was the case even before the target sound was added to the mixture. This suggests that a CI can reduce the need for physical movement both in anticipation of an upcoming sound event and while actively localizing the target sound. Overall, these results show that for SSD listeners, a CI can improve localization in a complex sound environment and reduce the amount of physical movement used.

Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or a CI for single-sided deafness (SSD-CI; one normally functioning acoustic ear) can partially restore spatial-hearing abilities, including sound localization and speech understanding in noise. For these populations, however, interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can occur and thus diminish binaural sensitivity that relies on interaurally frequency-matched neurons. This study examined whether plasticity-reorganization of central neural pathways over time-can compensate for peripheral interaural place mismatch. We hypothesized differential plasticity across two systems: none for binaural processing but adaptation for pitch perception toward frequencies delivered by the specific electrodes. Interaural place mismatch was evaluated in 19 BI-CI and 23 SSD-CI human subjects (both sexes) using binaural processing (interaural-time-difference discrimination with simultaneous bilateral stimulation), pitch perception (pitch ranking for single electrodes or acoustic tones with sequential bilateral stimulation), and physical electrode-location estimates from computed-tomography (CT) scans. On average, CT scans revealed relatively little BI-CI interaural place mismatch (26° insertion-angle mismatch) but a relatively large SSD-CI mismatch, particularly at low frequencies (166° for an electrode tuned to 300 Hz, decreasing to 14° at 7000 Hz). For BI-CI subjects, the three metrics were in agreement because there was little mismatch. For SSD-CI subjects, binaural and CT measurements were in agreement, suggesting little binaural-system plasticity induced by mismatch. The pitch measurements disagreed with binaural and CT measurements, suggesting place-pitch plasticity or a procedural bias. These results suggest that reducing interaural place mismatch and potentially improving binaural processing by reprogramming the CI frequency allocation would be better done using CT-scan than pitch information.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Electrode-array placement for cochlear implants (bionic prostheses that partially restore hearing) does not explicitly align neural representations of frequency information. The resulting interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can diminish spatial-hearing abilities. In this study, adults with two cochlear implants showed reasonable interaural alignment, whereas those with one cochlear implant but normal hearing in the other ear often showed mismatch. In cases of mismatch, binaural sensitivity was best when the same cochlear locations were stimulated in both ears, suggesting that binaural brainstem pathways do not experience plasticity to compensate for mismatch. In contrast, interaurally pitch-matched electrodes deviated from cochlear-location estimates and did not optimize binaural sensitivity. Clinical correction of interaural place mismatch using binaural or computed-tomography (but not pitch) information may improve spatial-hearing benefits.

A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

Interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch for bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) listeners is often evaluated using pitch-comparison tasks that can be susceptible to procedural biases. Bias effects were compared for three sequential interaural pitch-comparison tasks in six BI-CI listeners using single-electrode direct stimulation. The reference (right ear) was a single basal, middle, or apical electrode. The comparison electrode (left ear) was chosen from one of three ranges: basal half, full array, or apical half. In Experiment 1 (discrimination), interaural pairs were chosen randomly (method of constant stimuli). In Experiment 2 (ranking), an efficient adaptive procedure rank ordered 3 reference and 6 or 11 comparison electrodes. In Experiment 3 (matching), listeners adjusted the comparison electrode to pitch match the reference. Each experiment was evaluated for testing-range bias (point of subjective equality [PSE] vs. comparison-range midpoint) and reference-electrode slope bias (PSE vs. reference electrode). Discrimination showed large biases for both metrics; matching showed a smaller but significant reference-electrode bias; ranking showed no significant biases in either dimension. Ranking and matching were also evaluated for starting-point bias (PSE vs. adaptive-track starting point), but neither showed significant effects. A response-distribution truncation model explained a nonsignificant bias for ranking but it could not fully explain the observed biases for discrimination or matching. It is concluded that (a) BI-CI interaural pitch comparisons are inconsistent across test methods; (b) biases must be evaluated in more than one dimension before accepting the results as valid; and (c) of the three methods tested, ranking was least susceptible to biases and therefore emerged as the optimal approach.

Auditory and auditory-visual frequency-band importance functions for consonant recognition.

The relative importance of individual frequency regions for speech intelligibility has been firmly established for broadband auditory-only (AO) conditions. Yet, speech communication often takes place face-to-face. This study tested the hypothesis that under auditory-visual (AV) conditions, where visual information is redundant with high-frequency auditory cues, lower frequency regions will increase in relative importance compared to AO conditions. Frequency band-importance functions for consonants were measured for eight hearing-impaired and four normal-hearing listeners. Speech was filtered into four 1/3-octave bands each separated by an octave to minimize energetic masking. On each trial, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in each band was selected randomly from a 10-dB range. AO and AV band-importance functions were estimated using three logistic-regression analyses: a primary model relating performance to the four independent SNRs; a control model that also included band-interaction terms; and a different set of four control models, each examining one band at a time. For both listener groups, the relative importance of the low-frequency bands increased under AV conditions, consistent with earlier studies using isolated speech bands. All three analyses showed similar results, indicating the absence of cross-band interactions. These results suggest that accurate prediction of AV speech intelligibility may require different frequency-importance functions than for AO conditions.

Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders.

For single-sided deafness cochlear-implant (SSD-CI) listeners, different peripheral representations for electric versus acoustic stimulation, combined with interaural frequency mismatch, might limit the ability to perceive bilaterally presented speech as a single voice. The assessment of binaural fusion often relies on subjective report, which requires listeners to have some understanding of the perceptual phenomenon of object formation. Two experiments explored whether binaural fusion could instead be assessed using judgments of the number of voices in a mixture. In an SSD-CI simulation, normal-hearing listeners were presented with one or two "diotic" voices (i.e., unprocessed in one ear and noise-vocoded in the other) in a mixture with additional monaural voices. In experiment 1, listeners reported how many voices they heard. Listeners generally counted the diotic speech as two separate voices, regardless of interaural frequency mismatch. In experiment 2, listeners identified which of two mixtures contained diotic speech. Listeners performed significantly better with interaurally frequency-matched than with frequency-mismatched stimuli. These contrasting results suggest that listeners experienced partial fusion: not enough to count the diotic speech as one voice, but enough to detect its presence. The diotic-speech detection task (experiment 2) might provide a tool to evaluate fusion and optimize frequency mapping for SSD-CI patients.

Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit.

OBJECTIVES: Single-sided deafness cochlear-implant (SSD-CI) listeners and bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) listeners gain near-normal levels of head-shadow benefit but limited binaural benefits. One possible reason for these limited binaural benefits is that cochlear places of stimulation tend to be mismatched between the ears. SSD-CI and BI-CI patients might benefit from a binaural fitting that reallocates frequencies to reduce interaural place mismatch. However, this approach could reduce monaural speech recognition and head-shadow benefit by excluding low- or high-frequency information from one ear. This study examined how much frequency information can be excluded from a CI signal in the poorer-hearing ear without reducing head-shadow benefits and how these outcomes are influenced by interaural asymmetry in monaural speech recognition. DESIGN: Speech-recognition thresholds for sentences in speech-shaped noise were measured for 6 adult SSD-CI listeners, 12 BI-CI listeners, and 9 normal-hearing listeners presented with vocoder simulations. Stimuli were presented using nonindividualized in-the-ear or behind-the-ear head-related impulse-response simulations with speech presented from a 70° azimuth (poorer-hearing side) and noise from 70° (better-hearing side), thereby yielding a better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the poorer-hearing ear. Head-shadow benefit was computed as the improvement in bilateral speech-recognition thresholds gained from enabling the CI in the poorer-hearing, better-SNR ear. High- or low-pass filtering was systematically applied to the head-related impulse-response-filtered stimuli presented to the poorer-hearing ear. For the SSD-CI listeners and SSD-vocoder simulations, only high-pass filtering was applied, because the CI frequency allocation would never need to be adjusted downward to frequency-match the ears. For the BI-CI listeners and BI-vocoder simulations, both low and high pass filtering were applied. The normal-hearing listeners were tested with two levels of performance to examine the effect of interaural asymmetry in monaural speech recognition (vocoder synthesis-filter slopes: 5 or 20 dB/octave). RESULTS: Mean head-shadow benefit was smaller for the SSD-CI listeners (~7 dB) than for the BI-CI listeners (~14 dB). For SSD-CI listeners, frequencies <1236 Hz could be excluded; for BI-CI listeners, frequencies <886 or >3814 Hz could be excluded from the poorer-hearing ear without reducing head-shadow benefit. Bilateral performance showed greater immunity to filtering than monaural performance, with gradual changes in performance as a function of filter cutoff. Real and vocoder-simulated CI users with larger interaural asymmetry in monaural performance had less head-shadow benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The "exclusion frequency" ranges that could be removed without diminishing head-shadow benefit are interpreted in terms of low importance in the speech intelligibility index and a small head-shadow magnitude at low frequencies. Although groups and individuals with greater performance asymmetry gained less head-shadow benefit, the magnitudes of these factors did not predict the exclusion frequency range. Overall, these data suggest that for many SSD-CI and BI-CI listeners, the frequency allocation for the poorer-ear CI can be shifted substantially without sacrificing head-shadow benefit, at least for energetic maskers. Considering the two ears together as a single system may allow greater flexibility in discarding redundant frequency content from a CI in one ear when considering bilateral programming solutions aimed at reducing interaural frequency mismatch.

Acoustic Hearing Can Interfere With Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear-Implant Speech Perception.

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implants (CIs) restore some spatial advantages for speech understanding in noise to individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). In addition to a head-shadow advantage when the CI ear has a better signal-to-noise ratio, a CI can also provide a binaural advantage in certain situations, facilitating the perceptual separation of spatially separated concurrent voices. While some bilateral-CI listeners show a similar binaural advantage, bilateral-CI listeners with relatively large asymmetries in monaural speech understanding can instead experience contralateral speech interference. Based on the interference previously observed for asymmetric bilateral-CI listeners, this study tested the hypothesis that in a multiple-talker situation, the acoustic ear would interfere with rather than improve CI speech understanding for SSD-CI listeners. DESIGN: Experiment 1 measured CI-ear speech understanding in the presence of competing speech or noise for 13 SSD-CI listeners. Target speech from the closed-set coordinate response-measure corpus was presented to the CI ear along with one same-gender competing talker or stationary noise at target-to-masker ratios between -8 and 20 dB. The acoustic ear was presented with silence (monaural condition) or with a copy of the competing speech or noise (bilateral condition). Experiment 2 tested a subset of 6 listeners in the reverse configuration for which SSD-CI listeners have previously shown a binaural benefit (target and competing speech presented to the acoustic ear; silence or competing speech presented to the CI ear). Experiment 3 examined the possible influence of a methodological difference between experiments 1 and 2: whether the competing talker spoke keywords that were inside or outside the response set. For each experiment, the data were analyzed using repeated-measures logistic regression. For experiment 1, a correlation analysis compared the difference between bilateral and monaural speech-understanding scores to several listener-specific factors: speech understanding in the CI ear, preimplantation duration of deafness, duration of CI experience, ear of deafness (left/right), acoustic-ear audiometric thresholds, and listener age. RESULTS: In experiment 1, presenting a copy of the competing speech to the acoustic ear reduced CI speech-understanding scores for target-to-masker ratios ≥4 dB. This interference effect was limited to competing-speech conditions and was not observed for a noise masker. There was dramatic intersubject variability in the magnitude of the interference (range: 1 to 43 rationalized arcsine units), which was found to be significantly correlated with listener age. The interference effect contrasted sharply with the reverse configuration (experiment 2), whereby presenting a copy of the competing speech to the contralateral CI ear significantly improved performance relative to monaural acoustic-ear performance. Keyword condition (experiment 3) did not influence the observed pattern of interference. CONCLUSIONS: Most SSD-CI listeners experienced interference when they attended to the CI ear and competing speech was added to the acoustic ear, although there was a large amount of intersubject variability in the magnitude of the effect, with older listeners particularly susceptible to interference. While further research is needed to investigate these effects under free-field listening conditions, these results suggest that for certain spatial configurations in a multiple-talker situation, contralateral speech interference could reduce the benefit that an SSD-CI otherwise provides.

The fluctuating masker benefit for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners with equal audibility at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio.

Normal-hearing (NH) listeners can extract and integrate speech fragments from momentary dips in the level of a fluctuating masker, yielding a fluctuating-masker benefit (FMB) for speech understanding relative to a stationary-noise masker. Hearing-impaired (HI) listeners generally show less FMB, suggesting a dip-listening deficit attributable to suprathreshold spectral or temporal distortion. However, reduced FMB might instead result from different test signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), reduced absolute audibility of otherwise unmasked speech segments, or age differences. This study examined the FMB for nine age-matched NH-HI listener pairs, while simultaneously equalizing audibility, SNR, and percentage-correct performance in stationary noise. Nonsense syllables were masked by stationary noise, 4- or 32-Hz sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noise (SAMN), or an opposite-gender interfering talker. Stationary-noise performance was equalized by adjusting the response-set size. Audibility was equalized by removing stimulus components falling below the HI absolute threshold. HI listeners showed a clear 4.5-dB reduction in FMB for 32-Hz SAMN, a similar FMB to NH listeners for 4-Hz SAMN, and a non-significant trend toward a 2-dB reduction in FMB for an interfering talker. These results suggest that HI listeners do not exhibit a general dip-listening deficit for all fluctuating maskers, but rather a specific temporal-resolution deficit affecting performance for high-rate modulated maskers.

The Effect of Nonlinear Amplitude Growth on the Speech Perception Benefits Provided by a Single-Sided Vocoder.

Purpose For listeners with single-sided deafness, a cochlear implant (CI) can improve speech understanding by giving the listener access to the ear with the better target-to-masker ratio (TMR; head shadow) or by providing interaural difference cues to facilitate the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers (squelch). CI simulations presented to listeners with normal hearing examined how these benefits could be affected by interaural differences in loudness growth in a speech-on-speech masking task. Method Experiment 1 examined a target-masker spatial configuration where the vocoded ear had a poorer TMR than the nonvocoded ear. Experiment 2 examined the reverse configuration. Generic head-related transfer functions simulated free-field listening. Compression or expansion was applied independently to each vocoder channel (power-law exponents: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2). Results Compression reduced the benefit provided by the vocoder ear in both experiments. There was some evidence that expansion increased squelch in Experiment 1 but reduced the benefit in Experiment 2 where the vocoder ear provided a combination of head-shadow and squelch benefits. Conclusions The effects of compression and expansion are interpreted in terms of envelope distortion and changes in the vocoded-ear TMR (for head shadow) or changes in perceived target-masker spatial separation (for squelch). The compression parameter is a candidate for clinical optimization to improve single-sided deafness CI outcomes.

A method for degrading sound localization while preserving binaural advantages for speech reception in noise.

This study developed and tested a real-time processing algorithm designed to degrade sound localization (LocDeg algorithm) without affecting binaural benefits for speech reception in noise. Input signals were divided into eight frequency channels. The odd-numbered channels were mixed between the ears to confuse the direction of interaural cues while preserving interaural cues in the even-numbered channels. The LocDeg algorithm was evaluated for normal-hearing listeners performing sound localization and speech-reception tasks. Results showed that the LocDeg algorithm successfully degraded sound-localization performance without affecting speech-reception performance or spatial release from masking for speech in noise. The LocDeg algorithm did, however, degrade speech-reception performance in a task involving spatially separated talkers in a multi-talker environment, which is thought to depend on differences in perceived spatial location of concurrent talkers. This LocDeg algorithm could be a valuable tool for isolating the importance of sound-localization ability from other binaural benefits in real-world environments.

Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users.

By allowing bilateral access to sound, bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or unilateral CIs for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD; i.e., normal or near-normal hearing in one ear) can improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Spatial hearing in the horizontal plane is primarily conveyed by interaural time and level differences computed from neurons in the superior olivary complex that receive frequency-matched inputs. Because BI-CIs and SSD-CIs do not necessarily convey frequency-matched information, it is critical to understand how to align the inputs to CI users. Previous studies show that interaural pitch discrimination for SSD-CI listeners is highly susceptible to contextual biases, questioning its utility for establishing interaural frequency alignment. Here, we replicate this finding for SSD-CI listeners and show that these biases also extend to BI-CI listeners. To assess the testing-range bias, three ranges of comparison electrodes (BI-CI) or pure-tone frequencies (SSD-CI) were tested: full range, apical/lower half, or basal/upper half. To assess the reference bias, the reference electrode was either held fixed throughout a testing block or randomly chosen from three electrodes (basal end, middle, or apical end of the array). Results showed no effect of reference electrode randomization, but a large testing range bias; changing the center of the testing-range shifted the pitch match by an average 63 % (BI-CI) or 43 % (SSD-CI) of the change magnitude. This bias diminished pitch-match accuracy, with a change in reference electrode shifting the pitch match only an average 34 % (BI-CI) or 40 % (SSD-CI) of the expected amount. Because these effects extended to the relatively more symmetric BI-CI listeners, the results suggest that the bias cannot be attributed to interaural asymmetry. Unless the range effect can be minimized or accounted for, a pitch-discrimination task will produce interaural place-of-stimulation estimates that are highly influenced by the conditions tested, rather than reflecting a true interaural place-pitch comparison.