» Articles » PMID: 29800361

Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement

Overview
Date 2018 May 26
PMID 29800361
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to assess speech understanding in quiet and in diffuse noise for adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients utilizing bimodal hearing or bilateral CIs. Our primary hypothesis was that bilateral CI recipients would demonstrate less effect of source azimuth in the bilateral CI condition due to symmetric interaural head shadow.

Method: Sentence recognition was assessed for adult bilateral (n = 25) CI users and bimodal listeners (n = 12) in three conditions: (1) source location certainty regarding fixed target azimuth, (2) source location uncertainty regarding roving target azimuth, and (3) Condition 2 repeated, allowing listeners to turn their heads, as needed.

Results: (a) Bilateral CI users exhibited relatively similar performance regardless of source azimuth in the bilateral CI condition; (b) bimodal listeners exhibited higher performance for speech directed to the better hearing ear even in the bimodal condition; (c) the unilateral, better ear condition yielded higher performance for speech presented to the better ear versus speech to the front or to the poorer ear; (d) source location certainty did not affect speech understanding performance; and (e) head turns did not improve performance. The results confirmed our hypothesis that bilateral CI users exhibited less effect of source azimuth than bimodal listeners. That is, they exhibited similar performance for speech recognition irrespective of source azimuth, whereas bimodal listeners exhibited significantly poorer performance with speech originating from the poorer hearing ear (typically the nonimplanted ear).

Conclusions: Bilateral CI users overcame ear and source location effects observed for the bimodal listeners. Bilateral CI users have access to head shadow on both sides, whereas bimodal listeners generally have interaural asymmetry in both speech understanding and audible bandwidth limiting the head shadow benefit obtained from the poorer ear (generally the nonimplanted ear). In summary, we found that, in conditions with source location uncertainty and increased ecological validity, bilateral CI performance was superior to bimodal listening.

Citing Articles

Impact of Reverberation on Speech Perception in Noise in Bimodal/Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with and without Residual Hearing.

Konig C, Baumann U, Stover T, Weissgerber T J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274482 PMC: 11396047. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13175269.


Tonal language experience facilitates the use of spatial cues for segregating competing speech in bimodal cochlear implant listeners.

Chen B, Zhang X, Chen J, Shi Y, Zou X, Liu P JASA Express Lett. 2024; 4(3).

PMID: 38426890 PMC: 10926108. DOI: 10.1121/10.0025058.


Response shift in hearing related quality of life after cochlear implantation - effect size and clinical significance: a then-test study.

Brill I, Stark T, Wigers L, Brill S Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21(1):37.

PMID: 37098588 PMC: 10129310. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02118-w.


Effects of Bilateral Automatic Gain Control Synchronization in Cochlear Implants With and Without Head Movements: Sound Source Localization in the Frontal Hemifield.

Pastore M, Pulling K, Chen C, Yost W, Dorman M J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021; 64(7):2811-2824.

PMID: 34100627 PMC: 8632503. DOI: 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00493.


Bilateral Cochlear Implants or Bimodal Hearing for Children with Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Gifford R Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep. 2021; 8(4):385-394.

PMID: 33815965 PMC: 8011438. DOI: 10.1007/s40136-020-00314-6.


References
1.
Li N, Loizou P . A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 123(4):2287-94. PMC: 2677314. DOI: 10.1121/1.2839013. View

2.
Zhang T, Dorman M, Spahr A . Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation. Ear Hear. 2010; 31(1):63-9. PMC: 3684557. DOI: 10.1097/aud.0b013e3181b7190c. View

3.
Festen J, PLOMP R . Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 79(2):465-71. DOI: 10.1121/1.393534. View

4.
Summers V, Makashay M, Theodoroff S, Leek M . Suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise: hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013; 24(4):274-92. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.24.4.4. View

5.
Schafer E, Romine D, Musgrave E, Momin S, Huynh C . Electromagnetic versus electrical coupling of personal frequency modulation (FM) receivers to cochlear implant sound processors. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014; 24(10):927-40. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.24.10.5. View