» Articles » PMID: 36605011

Hearing Asymmetry Biases Spatial Hearing in Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Users Despite Bilateral Low-Frequency Hearing Preservation

Overview
Journal Trends Hear
Date 2023 Jan 6
PMID 36605011
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Many cochlear implant users with binaural residual (acoustic) hearing benefit from combining electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) in the implanted ear with acoustic amplification in the other. These bimodal EAS listeners can potentially use low-frequency binaural cues to localize sounds. However, their hearing is generally asymmetric for mid- and high-frequency sounds, perturbing or even abolishing binaural cues. Here, we investigated the effect of a frequency-dependent binaural asymmetry in hearing thresholds on sound localization by seven bimodal EAS listeners. Frequency dependence was probed by presenting sounds with power in low-, mid-, high-, or mid-to-high-frequency bands. Frequency-dependent hearing asymmetry was present in the bimodal EAS listening condition (when using both devices) but was also induced by independently switching devices on or off. Using both devices, hearing was near symmetric for low frequencies, asymmetric for mid frequencies with better hearing thresholds in the implanted ear, and monaural for high frequencies with no hearing in the non-implanted ear. Results show that sound-localization performance was poor in general. Typically, localization was strongly biased toward the better hearing ear. We observed that hearing asymmetry was a good predictor for these biases. Notably, even when hearing was symmetric a preferential bias toward the ear using the hearing aid was revealed. We discuss how frequency dependence of any hearing asymmetry may lead to binaural cues that are spatially inconsistent as the spectrum of a sound changes. We speculate that this inconsistency may prevent accurate sound-localization even after long-term exposure to the hearing asymmetry.

Citing Articles

Horizontal Sound Localization and Spatial Short-Term Memory Span in Hearing-Impaired Listeners and Listeners With Simulated Hearing Loss.

Song H, Kyong J, Lee J J Audiol Otol. 2024; 28(3):203-212.

PMID: 38946331 PMC: 11273189. DOI: 10.7874/jao.2023.00206.


Reduced digit spans and ear dominance using dichotic digits in bimodal cochlear-implant users.

Blackmon A, Goupell M, Bakke M, Stakhovskaya O JASA Express Lett. 2024; 4(5).

PMID: 38727569 PMC: 11550484. DOI: 10.1121/10.0025977.


Towards personalized and optimized fitting of cochlear implants.

Van Opstal A, Noordanus E Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:1183126.

PMID: 37521701 PMC: 10372492. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1183126.

References
1.
Stakhovskaya O, Goupell M . Lateralization of Interaural Level Differences with Multiple Electrode Stimulation in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners. Ear Hear. 2016; 38(1):e22-e38. PMC: 5161553. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000360. View

2.
van de Rijt L, Roye A, Mylanus E, Van Opstal A, van Wanrooij M . The Principle of Inverse Effectiveness in Audiovisual Speech Perception. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019; 13:335. PMC: 6775866. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00335. View

3.
van Wanrooij M, Van Opstal A . Contribution of head shadow and pinna cues to chronic monaural sound localization. J Neurosci. 2004; 24(17):4163-71. PMC: 6729291. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0048-04.2004. View

4.
Gifford R, Stecker G . Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation. Hear Res. 2020; 390:107929. PMC: 7187911. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107929. View

5.
van Ginkel C, Gifford R, Stecker G . Binaural interference with simulated electric acoustic stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019; 145(4):2445. PMC: 6491346. DOI: 10.1121/1.5098784. View