Search

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of auditory cues for spatial release from masking (SRM) in children with bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) and compare their performance with children with normal hearing (NH). To quantify the contribution to speech intelligibility benefits from individual auditory cues: head shadow, binaural redundancy, and interaural differences; as well as from multiple cues: SRM and binaural squelch. To assess SRM using a novel approach of adaptive target-masker angular separation, which provides a more functionally relevant assessment in realistic complex auditory environments. DESIGN: Children fitted with BiCIs (N=11) and with NH (N=18) were tested in virtual acoustic space (VAS) that was simulated using head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) measured from individual children with BiCIs behind the ear and from a standard head and torso simulator for all NH children. In Experiment I, by comparing speech reception thresholds (SRT) across four test conditions that varied in target-masker spatial separation (co-located vs. separated at 180-degree) and listening conditions (monaural vs. binaural/bilateral listening), intelligibility benefits were derived for individual auditory cues for SRM. In Experiment II, SRM was quantified using a novel measure to find the minimum angular separation (MAS) between the target and masker to achieve a fixed 20% intelligibility improvement. Target speech was fixed at either +90 or −90-degree azimuth on the side closer to the better ear (+90-degree for all NH children) and masker locations were adaptively varied. RESULTS: In Experiment I, children with BiCIs as a group had smaller intelligibility benefits from head shadow than NH children. No group difference was observed in benefits from binaural redundancy or interaural difference cues. In both groups of children, individuals who gained a larger benefit from interaural differences relied less on monaural head shadow, and vice versa. In Experiment II, all children with BiCIs demonstrated measurable MAS thresholds < 180-degree and on average larger than that from NH children. Eight of 11 children with BiCIs and all NH children had a MAS threshold < 90-degree, requiring interaural differences only to gain the target intelligibility benefit; whereas the other three children with BiCIs had a MAS between 120 and 137-degree, requiring monaural head shadow for SRM. CONCLUSIONS: When target and maskers were separated at 180-degree on opposing hemifields, children with BiCIs demonstrated greater intelligibility benefits from head shadow and interaural differences than previous literature showed with a smaller separation. Children with BiCIs demonstrated individual differences in using auditory cues for SRM. From the MAS thresholds, more than half of the children with BiCIs demonstrated robust access to interaural differences without needing additional monaural head shadow for SRM. Both experiments led to the conclusion that individualized fitting strategies in the bilateral devices may be warranted to maximize spatial hearing for children with BiCIs in complex auditory environments.

OBJECTIVES Over the past decade, U.S. Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs audiologists have reported large numbers of relatively young adult patients who have normal to near-normal audiometric thresholds but who report difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments. Many of these service members also reported having experienced exposure to explosive blasts as part of their military service. Recent studies suggest that some blast-exposed patients with normal to near-normal-hearing thresholds not only have an awareness of increased hearing difficulties, but also poor performance on various auditory tasks (sound source localization, speech recognition in noise, binaural integration, gap detection in noise, etc.). The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of functional hearing and communication deficits (FHCD) among healthy Active-Duty service men and women with normal to near-normal audiometric thresholds. DESIGN To estimate the prevalence of such FHCD in the overall military population, performance of roughly 3400 Active-Duty service members with hearing thresholds mostly within the normal range were measured on 4 hearing tests and a brief 6-question survey to assess FHCD. Subjects were subdivided into 6 groups depending on the severity of the blast exposure (3 levels: none, far away, or close enough to feel heat or pressure) and hearing thresholds (2 levels: audiometric thresholds of 20 dB HL or better, slight elevation in 1 or more thresholds between 500 and 4000 Hz in either ear). RESULTS While the probability of having hearing difficulty was low (≈4.2%) for the overall population tested, that probability increased by 2 to 3 times if the service member was blast-exposed from a close distance or had slightly elevated hearing thresholds (>20 dB HL). Service members having both blast exposure and mildly elevated hearing thresholds exhibited up to 4 times higher risk for performing abnormally on auditory tasks and more than 5 times higher risk for reporting abnormally low ratings on the subjective questionnaire, compared with service members with no history of blast exposure and audiometric thresholds ≤20 dB HL. Blast-exposed listeners were roughly 2.5 times more likely to experience subjective or objective hearing deficits than those with no-blast history. CONCLUSIONS These elevated rates of abnormal performance suggest that roughly 33.6% of Active-Duty service members (or approximately 423,000) with normal to near-normal-hearing thresholds (i.e., H1 profile) are at some risk for FHCD, and about 5.7% (approximately 72,000) are at high risk, but are currently untested and undetected within the current fitness-for-duty standards. Service members identified as "at risk" for FHCD according to the metrics used in the present study, in spite of their excellent hearing thresholds, require further testing to determine whether they have sustained damage to peripheral and early-stage auditory processing (bottom-up processing), damage to cognitive processes for speech (top-down processing), or both. Understanding the extent of damage due to noise and blast exposures and the balance between bottom-up processing deficits and top-down deficits will likely lead to better therapeutic strategies.

OBJECTIVE Choice of electrode array (EA) design and differences in outcome are major concerns both to patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and to surgeons before cochlear implant (CI) surgery. The present work investigates the effects of EA design on 1) insertion depths, and 2) audiological outcomes of SSD CI recipients. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective study. SETTING Tertiary academic center. PATIENTS Forty patients with acquired SSD matched according to duration of deafness MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:: Fourteen CI recipients were implanted with a perimodiolar electrode (cochlear perimodiolar [CPM]), 12 with a shorter lateral wall electrode (cochlear lateral wall [CLW]), and 14 with a longer lateral wall electrode array (medEl lateral wall [MLW]). Postoperative rotational tomography was evaluated to determine cochlear size and EA angle of insertion depth (AID). Binaural speech comprehension in noise (in three configuration presentations) and localization ability were assessed 12 months postoperatively with CI. RESULTS AID was significantly deeper in MLW (mean 527.94 degrees) compared with the CPM (mean 366.35 degrees) and CLW groups (mean 367.01 degrees). No significant difference in AID was seen between the CPM and CLW groups (difference 0.66 degrees). Cochlear sizes revealed no significant differences between any groups. All three groups showed significant improvement in head shadow effect (difference on average CPM: 6.3 dB SPL, CLW 5 dB SPL, and MLW 4.05 dB SPL) and localization ability at 12 months postoperatively (difference on average CPM: 19.72 degrees, CLW: 24 degrees, and MLW: 12.9 degrees). No significant difference in the extent of audiological benefit was observed between any groups. CONCLUSION No effect on binaural benefit was apparent from the selection of the three EA designs in SSD CI recipients. Further studies focusing on subjective results, sound quality, and music perception depending on EA design in SSD CI recipients are needed.

Objective The purpose of the present study was to investigate effective masking levels (EMLs) for bone conduction (BC) auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing in infants and adults. Early hearing detection and intervention programs aim to limit delays in identifying ear-specific type/degree of hearing loss in infants using the ABR. Ear-specific assessment poses challenges as sound delivered to one ear can travel across the skull and activate the contralateral cochlea. Wave V amplitude and latency measures ipsilateral and contralateral to the bone oscillator can be compared to isolate the test cochlea in some cases; however, when these findings are equivocal, clinical masking is required. This study aims to determine EMLs for ABRs elicited to 500- and 2000-Hz BC stimuli for normal-hearing infants (0 to 18 months) and adults. Design Participants were 21 adults (18 to 54 years) and 24 infants (5 to 47 weeks) with normal hearing. BC 500- and 2000-Hz brief tonal stimuli at intensities approximating normal levels were presented via a B-71 oscillator (infants: 20 dB nHL at 500 Hz and 30 dB nHL at 2000 Hz; adults: 500 and 2000 Hz at 20 and 30 dB nHL, respectively). White noise masking was presented binaurally via ER-3A earphones (22 to 82 dB SPL; 10-dB steps). The lowest level of masking to eliminate a BC response was deemed the EML. Results For stimuli presented at 20 dB nHL, adult mean (1 SD) EMLs for 500 and 2000 Hz were 65 (9) and 53 (6) dB SPL, respectively. Mean EMLs for infants were 80 (6) dB SPL for 500 Hz at 20 dB nHL and 64 (9) dB SPL for 2000 Hz at 30 dB nHL. Compared to adults, infants required approximately 13 dB more masking at 500 Hz but a similar amount of masking at 2000 Hz. Infants required 26 dB more masking at 500 versus 2000 Hz, whereas, adults required only 12 dB more masking. Conclusions Maximum binaural EMLs for infant BC responses elicited to 500 Hz at 20 dB nHL are 82 dB SPL, and for 2000 Hz at 30 and 40 dB nHL, respectively, are 72 and 82 dB SPL. Monaural masking levels for the nontest ear (assuming 10 dB of interaural attenuation) recommended clinically are as follows: (1) 500 Hz: 72 and 82 dB SPL at 20 and 30 dB nHL, respectively; and (2) 2000 Hz: 62, 72, and 82 dB SPL at 30, 40, and 50 dB nHL, respectively. Unsafe levels of white noise would be needed to effectively mask at greater stimulus levels.

Objectives: Cochlear implant (CI) users continue to struggle understanding speech in noisy environments with current clinical devices. We have previously shown that this outcome can be improved by using binaural sound processors inspired by the medial olivocochlear (MOC) reflex, which involve dynamic (contralaterally controlled) rather than fixed compressive acoustic-to-electric maps. The present study aimed at investigating the potential additional benefits of using more realistic implementations of MOC processing. Design: Eight users of bilateral CIs and two users of unilateral CIs participated in the study. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for sentences in competition with steady state noise were measured in unilateral and bilateral listening modes. Stimuli were processed through two independently functioning sound processors (one per ear) with fixed compression, the current clinical standard (STD); the originally proposed MOC strategy with fast contralateral control of compression (MOC1); a MOC strategy with slower control of compression (MOC2); and a slower MOC strategy with comparatively greater contralateral inhibition in the lower-frequency than in the higher-frequency channels (MOC3). Performance with the four strategies was compared for multiple simulated spatial configurations of the speech and noise sources. Based on a previously published technical evaluation of these strategies, we hypothesized that SRTs would be overall better (lower) with the MOC3 strategy than with any of the other tested strategies. In addition, we hypothesized that the MOC3 strategy would be advantageous over the STD strategy in listening conditions and spatial configurations where the MOC1 strategy was not. Results: In unilateral listening and when the implant ear had the worse acoustic signal-to-noise ratio, the mean SRT was 4 dB worse for the MOC1 than for the STD strategy (as expected), but it became equal or better for the MOC2 or MOC3 strategies than for the STD strategy. In bilateral listening, mean SRTs were 1.6 dB better for the MOC3 strategy than for the STD strategy across all spatial configurations tested, including a condition with speech and noise sources colocated at front where the MOC1 strategy was slightly disadvantageous relative to the STD strategy. All strategies produced significantly better SRTs for spatially separated than for colocated speech and noise sources. A statistically significant binaural advantage (i.e., better mean SRTs across spatial configurations and participants in bilateral than in unilateral listening) was found for the MOC2 and MOC3 strategies but not for the STD or MOC1 strategies. Conclusions: Overall, performance was best with the MOC3 strategy, which maintained the benefits of the originally proposed MOC1 strategy over the STD strategy for spatially separated speech and noise sources and extended those benefits to additional spatial configurations. In addition, the MOC3 strategy provided a significant binaural advantage, which did not occur with the STD or the original MOC1 strategies.

Objectives Individuals who use hearing aids (HAs) or cochlear implants (CIs) can experience broad binaural pitch fusion, such that sounds differing in pitch by as much as 3 to 4 octaves are perceptually integrated across ears. Previously, it was shown in HA users that the fused pitch is a weighted average of the two monaural pitches, ranging from equal weighting to dominance by the lower pitch. The goal of this study was to systematically measure the fused pitches in adult CI users, and determine whether CI users experience similar pitch averaging effects as observed in HA users. Design Twelve adult CI users (Cochlear Ltd, Sydney, Australia) participated in this study: six bimodal CI users, who wear a CI with a contralateral HA, and six bilateral CI users. Stimuli to HA ears were acoustic pure tones, and stimuli to CI ears were biphasic pulse trains delivered to individual electrodes. Fusion ranges, the ranges of frequencies/electrodes in the comparison ear that were fused with a single electrode (electrode 22, 18, 12, or 6) in the reference ear, were measured using simultaneous, dichotic presentation of reference and comparison stimuli in opposite ears, and varying the comparison stimulus. Once the fusion ranges were measured, the fused binaural pitch of a reference-pair stimulus combination was measured by finding a pitch match to monaural comparison stimuli presented to the paired stimulus ear. Results Fusion pitch weighting in CI users varied depending on the pitch difference of the reference-pair stimulus combination, with equal pitch averaging occurring for stimuli closer in pitch and lower pitch dominance occurring for stimuli farther apart in pitch. The averaging region was typically 0.5 to 2.3 octaves around the reference for bimodal CI users and 0.4 to 1.5 octaves for bilateral CI users. In some cases, a bias in the averaging region was observed toward the ear with greater stimulus variability. Conclusions Fusion pitch weighting effects in CI users were similar to those observed previously in HA users. However, CI users showed greater inter-subject variability in both pitch averaging ranges and bias effects. These findings suggest that binaural pitch averaging could be a common underlying mechanism in hearing-impaired listeners.

OBJECTIVES: Due to inter-aural frequency mismatch, bilateral cochlear-implant (CI) users may be less able to take advantage of binaural cues that normal-hearing (NH) listeners use for spatial hearing, such as inter-aural time differences and inter-aural level differences. As such, bilateral CI users have difficulty segregating competing speech even when the target and competing talkers are spatially separated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of spectral resolution, tonotopic mismatch (the frequency mismatch between the acoustic center frequency assigned to CI electrode within an implanted ear relative to the expected spiral ganglion characteristic frequency), and inter-aural mismatch (differences in the degree of tonotopic mismatch in each ear) on speech understanding and spatial release from masking (SRM) in the presence of competing talkers in NH subjects listening to bilateral vocoder simulations. DESIGN: During testing, both target and masker speech were presented in five-word sentences that had the same syntax but were not necessarily meaningful. The sentences were composed of five categories in fixed order (Name, Verb, Number, Color, and Clothes), each of which had 10 items, such that multiple sentences could be generated by randomly selecting a word from each category. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for the target sentence presented in competing speech maskers were measured. The target speech was delivered to both ears and the two speech maskers were delivered to: 1) both ears (diotic masker), or 2) different ears (dichotic masker: one delivered to the left ear and the other delivered to the right ear). Stimuli included the unprocessed speech and four 16-channel sine-vocoder simulations with different inter-aural mismatch (0, 1, and 2 mm). SRM was calculated as the difference between the diotic and dichotic listening conditions. RESULTS: With unprocessed speech, SRTs were 0.3 and −18.0 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. For the spectrally degraded speech with mild tonotopic mismatch and no inter-aural mismatch, SRTs were 5.6 and −2.0 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. When the tonotopic mismatch increased in both ears, SRTs worsened to 8.9 and 2.4 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. When the two ears had different tonotopic mismatch (e.g., there was inter-aural mismatch), the performance drop in SRTs was much larger for the dichotic than for the diotic masker. The largest SRM was observed with unprocessed speech (18.3 dB). With the CI simulations, SRM was significantly reduced to 7.6 dB even with mild tonotopic mismatch but no inter-aural mismatch; SRM was further reduced with increasing inter-aural mismatch. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that frequency resolution, tonotopic mismatch, and inter-aural mismatch have differential effects on speech understanding and SRM in simulation of bilateral CIs. Minimizing inter-aural mismatch may be critical to optimize binaural benefits and improve CI performance for competing speech, a typical listening environment. SRM (the difference in SRTs between diotic and dichotic maskers) may be a useful clinical tool to assess inter-aural frequency mismatch in bilateral CI users and to evaluate the benefits of optimization methods that minimize inter-aural mismatch.

Objective The role of bilateral bone conduction amplification in patients with bilateral conductive hearing loss is unclear because cranial attenuation is usually considered negligible, and both cochleae can be stimulated with similar efficacy by each device. The aim of the study was to determine if bilateral bone-conduction hearing aids can improve hearing in noise in a homogeneous group of normal-hearing subjects with bilateral pseudo-conductive hearing loss. Study design Prospective, comparative. Setting Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders in University of Haifa, Israel. Subjects Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders in University of Haifa, Israel. Interventions Induction of bilateral pseudo-conductive hearing loss of more than 35 dB using earplugs and earmuffs. Main outcome measures Hearing quality on blinded comparison of unilateral versus bilateral amplification with bone-conduction hearing aids under different locations of noise. Results Unilateral and bilateral amplification had similar efficacy when both signal and noise were presented from the front. However, bilateral amplification was significantly better when signals were presented from the front and noise was presented from both sides (SNR -10: 92% vs. 84%, p = 0.001; SNR -15: 84% vs. 78%, p = 0.005). Analysis of subject responses on blinded questionnaires revealed that 81% found hearing easier with bilateral amplification. Noise was reported to be more disturbing with unilateral amplification by 55% of the subjects and with bilateral amplification, by 9%. Conclusions Bilateral amplification with bone conduction devices can improve understanding in noise in the binaural squelch setting. Subjective improvements with bilateral bone-conduction aids included better sound quality and reduced noise disturbance. These findings are consistent with the binaural mechanism of spectral release from masking.

Objective To implement a unified testing framework into clinical routine that can be used by adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) to assess alternative treatment options before cochlear implantation. Study design Retrospective data analysis. Setting Tertiary referral center with a large CI program. Subjects and methods Thirty four participants underwent the new implemented testing procedure, including a test trial with contralateral routing of the signal (CROS) hearing aids and bone conduction devices (BCD) on a headband, before deciding whether to proceed with cochlear implantation. A test battery was used to assess speech in noise, binaural effects (head shadow, squelch, summation, spatial release from masking), sound localization, and quality of life. For participants that chose a CI, the same test battery was repeated during the 6 and 12 months follow-up appointments. Results Of the 34 participants involved in the study, 11 were implanted with a CI and finished their 12 month evaluation. Sixteen participants decided to stop after the CROS/BCD trial. In the CI-recipient group, a significant head shadow effect of 5.1 to 7.1 dB was achieved with the CI. Recipients in this group received only a limited benefit with either CROS or BCD before implantation. In the non-CI-recipient group, a significant difference between the CROS and BCD, in favor for the CROS device, was found calculating the head shadow and squelch effect. Localization abilities with the CI improved significantly in the CI-recipient group, even between the 6- and 12-month follow-up appointments. In the non-CI-recipient group, localization was significantly better with the BCD during the trial period. Higher scores were obtained from the speech and spatial categories of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaire with the CI. No subjective difference could be determined in the non-CI-recipient group. Conclusion Implementing the unified testing framework into a clinical routine was challenging but provided helpful insight into the best treatment option for each individual.

Hypothesis Patients with moderate-to-severe unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL) can make use of binaural difference cues when stimuli are presented at a high enough intensity to provide audibility in the affected ear. Background Spatial hearing is essential for listening in complex environments and sound source localization. Patients with UCHL have decreased access to binaural difference cues, resulting in poorer spatial hearing abilities compared with listeners with normal hearing. Methods Twelve patients with moderate-to-severe UCHL, most due to atresia (83.3%), and 12 age-matched controls with normal hearing bilaterally participated in this study. Outcome measures included: 1) spatial release from masking, and 2) sound source localization. Speech reception thresholds were measured with target speech (Pediatric AzBio sentences) presented at 0 degree and a two-talker masker that was either colocated with the target (0 degree) or spatially separated from the target (symmetrical, ±90 degrees). Spatial release from masking was quantified as the difference between speech reception thresholds in these two conditions. Localization ability in the horizontal plane was assessed in a 180 degree arc of 11 evenly-spaced loudspeakers. These two tasks were completed at 50 and 75 dB SPL. Results Both children and adults with UCHL performed more poorly than controls when recognizing speech in a spatially separated masker or localizing sound; however, this group difference was larger at 50 than 75 dB SPL. Conclusion Patients with UCHL experience improved spatial hearing with the higher presentation level, suggesting that the auditory deprivation associated with a moderate-to-severe UCHL does not preclude exposure to-or use of-binaural difference cues.

OBJECTIVES Small, excitatory surface potentials can sometimes be recorded from the contralateral sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) following monaural acoustic stimulation. Little is known about the physiological properties of these crossed reflexes. In this study, we sought the properties of crossed SCM responses and through comparison with other cochlear and vestibular myogenic potentials, their likely receptor origin. DESIGN Surface potentials were recorded from the ipsilateral and contralateral SCM and postauricular (PAM) muscles of 11 healthy volunteers, 4 patients with superior canal dehiscence and 1 with profound hearing loss. Air-conducted clicks of 105 dB nHL and tone bursts (250 to 4000 Hz) of 100 dB nHL were presented monaurally through TDH 49 headphones during head elevation. Click-evoked responses were recorded under two conditions of gaze in random order: gaze straight ahead and rotated hard toward the contralateral recording electrodes. Amplitudes (corrected and uncorrected) and latencies for crossed SCM responses were compared with vestibular (ipsilateral SCM) and cochlear (PAM) responses between groups and across the different recording conditions. RESULTS Surface waveforms were biphasic; positive-negative for the ipsilateral SCM, and negative-positive for the contralateral SCM and PAM. There were significant differences in the amplitudes and latencies (p = 0.004) for click responses of healthy controls across recording sites. PAM responses had the largest mean-corrected amplitudes (2.3 ± 2.8) and longest latencies (13.0 ± 1.2 msec), compared with ipsilateral (1.6 ± 0.5; 12.0 ± 0.7 msec) and contralateral (0.8 ± 0.3; 10.4 ± 1.0 msec) SCM responses. Uncorrected amplitudes and muscle activation for PAM increased by 104.4% and 46.8% with lateral gaze respectively, whereas SCM responses were not significantly affected. Click responses of patients with superior canal dehiscence followed a similar latency, amplitude, and gaze modulation trend as controls. SCM responses were preserved in the patient with profound hearing loss, yet all PAM were absent. There were significant differences in the frequency tuning of the three reflexes (p < 0.001). Tuning curves of healthy controls were flat for PAM and down sloping for ipsilateral and contralateral SCM responses. For superior canal dehiscence, they were rising for PAM and slightly down sloping for SCM responses. CONCLUSIONS Properties of crossed SCM responses were similar, though not identical, to those of ipsilateral SCM responses and are likely to be predominantly vestibular in origin. They are unlikely to represent volume conduction from the PAM as they were unaffected by lateral gaze, were shorter in latency, and had different tuning properties. The influence of crossed vestibulo-collic pathways should be considered when interpreting cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials recorded under conditions of binaural stimulation.

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.

Objectives: Cochlear implants (CIs) restore speech perception in quiet but they also eliminate or distort many acoustic cues that are important for music enjoyment. Unfortunately, quantifying music enjoyment by CI users has been difficult because comparisons must rely on their recollection of music before they lost their hearing. Here, we aimed to assess music enjoyment in CI users using a readily interpretable reference based on acoustic hearing. The comparison was done by testing "single-sided deafness" (SSD) patients who have normal hearing (NH) in one ear and a CI in the other ear. The study also aimed to assess binaural musical enjoyment, with the reference being the experience of hearing with a single NH ear. Three experiments assessed the effect of adding different kinds of input to the second ear: electrical, vocoded, or unmodified. Design: In experiment 1, music enjoyment in SSD-CI users was investigated using a modified version of the MUSHRA (MUltiple Stimuli with Hidden Reference and Anchor) method. Listeners rated their enjoyment of song segments on a scale of 0 to 200, where 100 represented the enjoyment obtained from a song segment presented to the NH ear, 0 represented a highly degraded version of the same song segment presented to the same ear, and 200 represented enjoyment subjectively rated as twice as good as the 100 reference. Stimuli consisted of acoustic only, electric only, acoustic and electric, as well as other conditions with low pass filtered acoustic stimuli. Acoustic stimulation was provided by headphone to the NH ear and electric stimulation was provided by direct audio input to the subject's speech processor. In experiment 2, the task was repeated using NH listeners who received vocoded stimuli instead of electric stimuli. Experiment 3 tested the effect of adding the same unmodified song segment to the second ear, also in NH listeners. Results: Music presented through the CI only was very unpleasant, with an average rating of 20. Surprisingly, the combination of the unpleasant CI signal in one ear with acoustic stimulation in the other ear was rated more enjoyable (mean = 123) than acoustic processing alone. Presentation of the same monaural musical signal to both ears in NH listeners resulted with even greater enhancement of the experience compared with presentation to a single ear (mean = 159). Repeating the experiment using a vocoder to one ear of NH listeners resulted in interference rather than enhancement. Conclusions: Music enjoyment from electric stimulation is extremely poor relative to a readily interpretable NH baseline for CI-SSD listeners. However, the combination of this unenjoyable signal presented through a CI and an unmodified acoustic signal presented to a NH (or near-NH) contralateral ear results in enhanced music enjoyment with respect to the acoustic signal alone. Remarkably, this two-ear enhancement experienced by CI-SSD listeners represents a substantial fraction of the two-ear enhancement seen in NH listeners. This unexpected benefit of electroacoustic auditory stimulation will have to be considered in theoretical accounts of music enjoyment and may facilitate the quest to enhance music enjoyment in CI users.

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.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).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, frequencies1236 Hz could be excluded; for BI-CI listeners, frequencies886 or3814 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.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.

Objectives Adopting the omnidirectional microphone (OMNI) mode and reducing low-frequency gain are the two most commonly used wind noise reduction strategies in hearing devices. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of these two strategies on cochlear implant users' speech-understanding abilities and perceived sound quality in wind noise. We also examined the effectiveness of a new strategy that adopts the microphone mode with lower wind noise level in each frequency channel. Design A behind-the-ear digital hearing aid with multiple microphone modes was used to record testing materials for cochlear implant participants. It was adjusted to have linear amplification, flat frequency response when worn on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research to remove the head-related transfer function of the manikin and to mimic typical microphone characteristics of hearing devices. Recordings of wind noise samples and hearing-in-noise test sentences were made when the hearing aid was programmed to four microphone modes, namely (1) OMNI; (2) adaptive directional microphone (ADM); (3) ADM with low-frequency roll-off; and (4) a combination of omnidirectional and directional microphone (COMBO). Wind noise samples were recorded in an acoustically treated wind tunnel from 0° to 360° in 10° increment at a wind velocity of 4.5, 9.0, and 13.5 m/s when the hearing aid was worn on the manikin. Two wind noise samples recorded at 90° and 300° head angles at the wind velocity of 9.0 m/s were chosen to take advantage of the spectral masking release effects of COMBO. The samples were then mixed with the sentences recorded using identical settings. Cochlear implant participants listened to the speech-in-wind testing materials and they repeated the sentences and compared overall sound quality preferences of different microphone modes using a paired-comparison categorical rating paradigm. The participants also rated their preferences of wind-only samples. Results COMBO yielded the highest speech recognition scores among the four microphone modes, and it was also preferred the most often, likely due to the reduction of spectral masking. The speech recognition scores generated using ADM with low-frequency roll-off were either equal to or lower than those obtained using ADM because gain reduction decreased not only the level of wind noise but also the low-frequency energy of speech. OMNI consistently yielded speech recognition scores lower than COMBO, and it was often rated as less preferable than other microphone modes, suggesting the conventional strategy to switch to the omnidirectional mode in the wind was undesirable. Conclusions Neither adopting an OMNI nor reducing low-frequency gain generated higher speech recognition scores or higher sound quality ratings than COMBO. Adopting the microphone with lower wind noise level in different frequency channels can provide spectral masking release, and it is a more effective wind noise reduction strategy. The natural 6 dB/octave low-frequency roll-off of first-order directional microphones should be compensated when speech is present. Signal detection and decision rules for wind noise reduction applications are discussed in hearing devices with and without binaural transmission capability.

Objective The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of various measures of speech understanding in distinguishing performance differences between adult bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to provide a preliminary evidence-based tool guiding clinical decisions regarding bilateral CI candidacy. Design This study used a multiple-baseline, cross-sectional design investigating speech recognition performance for 85 experienced adult CI recipients (49 bimodal, 36 bilateral). Speech recognition was assessed in a standard clinical test environment with a single loudspeaker using the minimum speech test battery for adult CI recipients as well as with an R-SPACE 8-loudspeaker, sound-simulation system. All participants were tested in three listening conditions for each measure including each ear alone as well as in the bilateral/bimodal condition. In addition, we asked each bimodal listener to provide a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" Results This study yielded three primary findings: (1) there were no significant differences between bimodal and bilateral CI performance or binaural summation on clinical measures of speech recognition, (2) an adaptive speech recognition task in the R-SPACE system revealed significant differences in performance and binaural summation between bimodal and bilateral CI users, with bilateral CI users achieving significantly better performance and greater summation, and (3) the patient's answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" held high sensitivity (100% hit rate) for identifying likely bilateral CI candidates and moderately high specificity (77% correct rejection rate) for correctly identifying listeners best suited with a bimodal hearing configuration. Conclusions Clinics cannot rely on current clinical measures of speech understanding, with a single loudspeaker, to determine bilateral CI candidacy for adult bimodal listeners nor to accurately document bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal hearing configuration. Speech recognition in a complex listening environment, such as R-SPACE, is a sensitive and appropriate measure for determining bilateral CI candidacy and also likely for documenting bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal configuration. In the absence of an available R-SPACE system, asking the patient whether or not s/he thinks s/he needs a second CI is a highly sensitive measure, which may prove clinically useful.

Objectives We sought to investigate whether children referred to our audiology clinic with a complaint of listening difficulty, that is, suspected of auditory processing disorder (APD), have difficulties localizing sounds in noise and whether they have reduced benefit from spatial release from masking. Design Forty-seven typically hearing children in the age range of 7 to 17 years took part in the study. Twenty-one typically developing (TD) children served as controls, and the other 26 children, referred to our audiology clinic with listening problems, were the study group: suspected APD (sAPD). The ability to localize a speech target (the word "baseball") was measured in quiet, broadband noise, and speech-babble in a hemi-anechoic chamber. Participants stood at the center of a loudspeaker array that delivered the target in a diffused noise-field created by presenting independent noise from four loudspeakers spaced 90° apart starting at 45°. In the noise conditions, the signal-to-noise ratio was varied between -12 and 0 dB in 6-dB steps by keeping the noise level constant at 66 dB SPL and varying the target level. Localization ability was indexed by two metrics, one assessing variability in lateral plane [lateral scatter (Lscat)] and the other accuracy in the front/back dimension [front/back percent correct (FBpc)]. Spatial release from masking (SRM) was measured using a modified version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). In this HINT paradigm, speech targets were always presented from the loudspeaker at 0°, and a single noise source was presented either at 0°, 90°, or 270° at 65 dB A. The SRM was calculated as the difference between the 50% correct HINT speech reception threshold obtained when both speech and noise were collocated at 0° and when the noise was presented at either 90° or 270°. Results As expected, in both groups, localization in noise improved as a function of signal-to-noise ratio. Broadband noise caused significantly larger disruption in FBpc than in Lscat when compared with speech babble. There were, however, no group effects or group interactions, suggesting that the children in the sAPD group did not differ significantly from TD children in either localization metric (Lscat and FBpc). While a significant SRM was observed in both groups, there were no group effects or group interactions. Collectively, the data suggest that children in the sAPD group did not differ significantly from the TD group for either binaural measure investigated in the study. Conclusions As is evident from a few poor performers, some children with listening difficulties may have difficulty in localizing sounds and may not benefit from spatial separation of speech and noise. However, the heterogeneity in APD and the variability in our data do not support the notion that localization is a global APD problem. Future studies that employ a case study design might provide more insights.

Purpose Electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) with preserved hearing in the implanted ear provides benefit for speech understanding, spatial hearing, and quality of life in adults. However, there is limited research on EAS outcomes in children. The aims of this study were to estimate the magnitude of EAS-related benefit on speech understanding in children with preserved acoustic hearing and to determine what role acoustic interaural time difference (ITD) sensitivity may have on said EAS benefit. Methods Six children with acoustic hearing preservation and 20 children with normal hearing (NH) were recruited to participate. Speech recognition was assessed via an eight-loudspeaker array with speech presented from one loudspeaker at 0 degree and restaurant noise from all other loudspeakers (45-315 degrees). ITD thresholds were measured for a 250-Hz signal presented acoustically via insert earphones. Results Only one EAS listener demonstrated significant benefit from bilateral acoustic hearing as compared with acoustic hearing from a single ear. ITD thresholds were poor in the range of 302 to 1000+ ms and were considerably poorer than ITD thresholds for the NH group. Conclusion These data suggest that children with acoustic hearing preservation may not exhibit initial EAS benefit for speech recognition in semi-diffuse noise; however, because none exhibited a decrement in performance with bilateral acoustic stimulation, EAS fittings are recommended to provide binaural acoustic access allowing for EAS adaptation to binaural cues over time. Future research should address the emergence of EAS benefit, binaural cue sensitivity, and the role of EAS experience in children and adults.

Objectives Cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to benefit patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) in terms of tinnitus reduction, localization, speech understanding, and quality of life (QoL). While previous studies have shown cochlear implantation may benefit SSD patients, it is unclear which point of comparison is most relevant: baseline performance before implantation versus performance with normal-hearing (NH) ear after implantation. In this study, CI outcomes were assessed in SSD patients before and up to 6 mo postactivation. Benefits of cochlear implantation were assessed relative to binaural performance before implantation or relative to performance with the NH ear alone after implantation. Design Here, we report data for 10 patients who completed a longitudinal, prospective, Food and Drug Administration-approved study of cochlear implantation for SSD patients. All subjects had severe to profound unilateral hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the other ear. All patients were implanted with the MED-EL CONCERTO Flex 28 device. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise, localization, and tinnitus severity (with the CI on or off) were measured before implantation (baseline) and at 1, 3, 6 mo postactivation of the CI processor. Performance was measured with both ears (binaural), the CI ear alone, and the NH ear alone (the CI ear was plugged and muffed). Tinnitus severity, dizziness severity, and QoL were measured using questionnaires administered before implantation and 6 mo postactivation. Results Significant CI benefits were observed for tinnitus severity, localization, speech understanding, and QoL. The degree and time course of CI benefit depended on the outcome measure and the reference point. Relative to binaural baseline performance, significant and immediate (1 mo postactivation) CI benefits were observed for tinnitus severity and speech performance in noise, but localization did not significantly improve until 6 mo postactivation; questionnaire data showed significant improvement in QoL 6 mo postactivation. Relative to NH-only performance after implantation, significant and immediate benefits were observed for tinnitus severity and localization; binaural speech understanding in noise did not significantly improve during the 6-mo study period, due to variability in NH-only performance. There were no correlations between behavioral and questionnaire data, except between tinnitus visual analog scale scores at 6 mo postactivation and Tinnitus Functional Index scores at 6 mo postactivation. Conclusions The present behavioral and subjective data suggest that SSD patients greatly benefit from cochlear implantation. However, to fully understand the degree and time course of CI benefit, the outcome measure and point of comparison should be considered. From a clinical perspective, binaural baseline performance is a relevant point of comparison. The lack of correlation between behavioral and questionnaire data suggest that represent independent measures of CI benefit for SSD patients.

Objective The binaural-hearing system interaurally compares inputs, which underlies the ability to localize sound sources and to better understand speech in complex acoustic environments. Cochlear implants (CIs) are provided in both ears to increase binaural-hearing benefits; however, bilateral CI users continue to struggle with understanding speech in the presence of interfering sounds and do not achieve the same level of spatial release from masking (SRM) as normal-hearing listeners. One reason for diminished SRM in CI users could be that the electrode arrays are inserted at different depths in each ear, which would cause an interaural frequency mismatch. Because interaural frequency mismatch diminishes the salience of interaural differences for relatively simple stimuli, it may also diminish binaural benefits for spectral-temporally complex stimuli like speech. This study evaluated the effect of simulated frequency-to-place mismatch on speech understanding and SRM. Design Eleven normal-hearing listeners were tested on a speech understanding task. There was a female target talker who spoke five-word sentences from a closed set of words. There were two interfering male talkers who spoke unrelated sentences. Nonindividualized head-related transfer functions were used to simulate a virtual auditory space. The target was presented from the front (0°), and the interfering speech was either presented from the front (colocated) or from 90° to the right (spatially separated). Stimuli were then processed by an eight-channel vocoder with tonal carriers to simulate aspects of listening through a CI. Frequency-to-place mismatch ("shift") was introduced by increasing the center frequency of the synthesis filters compared with the corresponding analysis filters. Speech understanding was measured for different shifts (0, 3, 4.5, and 6 mm) and target-to-masker ratios (TMRs: +10 to -10 dB). SRM was calculated as the difference in the percentage of correct words for the colocated and separated conditions. Two types of shifts were tested: (1) bilateral shifts that had the same frequency-to-place mismatch in both ears, but no interaural frequency mismatch, and (2) unilateral shifts that produced an interaural frequency mismatch. Results For the bilateral shift conditions, speech understanding decreased with increasing shift and with decreasing TMR, for both colocated and separate conditions. There was, however, no interaction between shift and spatial configuration; in other words, SRM was not affected by shift. For the unilateral shift conditions, speech understanding decreased with increasing interaural mismatch and with decreasing TMR for both the colocated and spatially separated conditions. Critically, there was a significant interaction between the amount of shift and spatial configuration; in other words, SRM decreased for increasing interaural mismatch. Conclusions A frequency-to-place mismatch in one or both ears resulted in decreased speech understanding. SRM, however, was only affected in conditions with unilateral shifts and interaural frequency mismatch. Therefore, matching frequency information between the ears provides listeners with larger binaural-hearing benefits, for example, improved speech understanding in the presence of interfering talkers. A clinical procedure to reduce interaural frequency mismatch when programming bilateral CIs may improve benefits in speech segregation that are due to binaural-hearing abilities.

Objectives Normalizing perceived loudness is an important rationale for gain adjustments in hearing aids. It has been demonstrated that gains required for restoring normal loudness perception for monaural narrowband signals can lead to higher-than-normal loudness in listeners with hearing loss, particularly for binaural broadband presentation. The present study presents a binaural bandwidth-adaptive dynamic compressor (BBDC) that can apply different gains for narrow- and broadband signals. It was hypothesized that normal perceived loudness for a broad variety of signals could be restored for listeners with mild to moderate high-frequency hearing loss by applying individual signal-dependent gain corrections. Design Gains to normalize perceived loudness for narrowband stimuli were assessed in 15 listeners with mild to moderate high-frequency hearing loss using categorical loudness scaling. Gains for narrowband loudness compensation were calculated and applied in a standard compressor. Aided loudness functions for signals with different bandwidths were assessed. The deviation from the average normal-hearing loudness functions was used for gain correction in the BBDC. Aided loudness functions for narrow- and broadband signals with BBDC were then assessed. Gains for a 65 dB SPL speech-shaped noise of BBDC were compared with gains based on National Acoustic Laboratories' nonlinear fitting procedure version 2 (NAL-NL2). The perceived loudness for 20 real signals was compared to the average normal-hearing rating. Results The suggested BBDC showed close-to-normal loudness functions for binaural narrow- and broadband signals for the listeners with hearing loss. Normal loudness ratings were observed for the real-world test signals. The proposed gain reduction method resulted on average in similar gains as prescribed by NAL-NL2. However, substantial gain variations compared to NAL-NL2 were observed in the data for individual listeners. Gain corrections after narrowband loudness compensation showed large interindividual differences for binaural broadband signals. Some listeners required no further gain reduction for broadband signals; for others, gains in decibels were more than halved for binaural broadband signals. Conclusion The interindividual differences of the binaural broadband gain corrections indicate that relevant information for normalizing perceived loudness of binaural broadband signals cannot be inferred from monaural narrowband loudness functions. Over-amplification can be avoided if binaural broadband measurements are included in the fitting procedure. For listeners with a high binaural broadband gain correction factor, loudness compensation for narrowband and broadband stimuli cannot be achieved by compression algorithms that disregard the bandwidth of the input signals. The suggested BBDC includes individual binaural broadband corrections in a more appropriate way than threshold-based procedures.

OBJECTIVES This study was designed to evaluate binaural temporal processing in young and older adults using a binaural masking level difference (BMLD) paradigm. Using behavioral and electrophysiological measures within the same listeners, a series of stimulus manipulations was used to evaluate the relative contribution of binaural temporal fine-structure and temporal envelope cues. We evaluated the hypotheses that age-related declines in the BMLD task would be more strongly associated with temporal fine-structure than envelope cues and that age-related declines in behavioral measures would be correlated with cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) measures. DESIGN Thirty adults participated in the study, including 10 young normal-hearing, 10 older normal-hearing, and 10 older hearing-impaired adults with bilaterally symmetric, mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Behavioral and CAEP thresholds were measured for diotic (So) and dichotic (Sπ) tonal signals presented in continuous diotic (No) narrowband noise (50-Hz wide) maskers. Temporal envelope cues were manipulated by using two different narrowband maskers; Gaussian noise (GN) with robust envelope fluctuations and low-noise noise (LNN) with minimal envelope fluctuations. The potential to use temporal fine-structure cues was controlled by varying the signal frequency (500 or 4000 Hz), thereby relying on the natural decline in phase-locking with increasing frequency. RESULTS Behavioral and CAEP thresholds were similar across groups for diotic conditions, while the masking release in dichotic conditions was larger for younger than for older participants. Across all participants, BMLDs were larger for GN than LNN and for 500-Hz than for 4000-Hz conditions, where envelope and fine-structure cues were most salient, respectively. Specific age-related differences were demonstrated for 500-Hz dichotic conditions in GN and LNN, reflecting reduced binaural temporal fine-structure coding. No significant age effects were observed for 4000-Hz dichotic conditions, consistent with similar use of binaural temporal envelope cues across age in these conditions. For all groups, thresholds and derived BMLD values obtained using the behavioral and CAEP methods were strongly correlated, supporting the notion that CAEP measures may be useful as an objective index of age-related changes in binaural temporal processing. CONCLUSIONS These results demonstrate an age-related decline in the processing of binaural temporal fine-structure cues with preserved temporal envelope coding that was similar with and without mild-to-moderate peripheral hearing loss. Such age-related changes can be reliably indexed by both behavioral and CAEP measures in young and older adults.

Objectives Among the many advantages of binaural hearing are the abilities to localize sounds in space and to attend to one sound in the presence of many sounds. Binaural hearing provides benefits for all listeners, but it may be especially critical for military personnel who must maintain situational awareness in complex tactical environments with multiple speech and noise sources. There is concern that Military Service Members who have been exposed to one or more high-intensity blasts during their tour of duty may have difficulty with binaural and spatial ability due to degradation in auditory and cognitive processes. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of blast-exposed Military Service Members to localize speech sounds in quiet and in multisource environments with one or two competing talkers. Design Participants were presented with one, two, or three topic-related (e.g., sports, food, travel) sentences under headphones and required to attend to, and then locate the source of, the sentence pertaining to a prespecified target topic within a virtual space. The listener's head position was monitored by a head-mounted tracking device that continuously updated the apparent spatial location of the target and competing speech sounds as the subject turned within the virtual space. Measurements of auditory localization ability included mean absolute error in locating the source of the target sentence, the time it took to locate the target sentence within 30 degrees, target/competitor confusion errors, response time, and cumulative head motion. Twenty-one blast-exposed Active-Duty or Veteran Military Service Members (blast-exposed group) and 33 non-blast-exposed Service Members and beneficiaries (control group) were evaluated. Results In general, the blast-exposed group performed as well as the control group if the task involved localizing the source of a single speech target. However, if the task involved two or three simultaneous talkers, localization ability was compromised for some participants in the blast-exposed group. Blast-exposed participants were less accurate in their localization responses and required more exploratory head movements to find the location of the target talker. Conclusions Results suggest that blast-exposed participants have more difficulty than non-blast-exposed participants in localizing sounds in complex acoustic environments. This apparent deficit in spatial hearing ability highlights the need to develop new diagnostic tests using complex listening tasks that involve multiple sound sources that require speech segregation and comprehension.

OBJECTIVES To measure binaural benefit over the shadowed ear alone for young bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users. It was hypothesized that children who received bilateral CIs at a young age (

OBJECTIVES Cochlear implants (CIs) are increasingly recommended to individuals with residual bilateral acoustic hearing. Although new hearing-preserving electrode designs and surgical approaches show great promise, CI recipients are still at risk to lose acoustic hearing in the implanted ear, which could prevent the ability to take advantage of binaural unmasking to aid speech recognition in noise. This study examined the tradeoff between the benefits of a CI for speech understanding in noise and the potential loss of binaural unmasking for CI recipients with some bilateral preoperative acoustic hearing. DESIGN Binaural unmasking is difficult to evaluate in CI candidates because speech perception in noise is generally too poor to measure reliably in the range of signal to noise ratios (SNRs) where binaural intelligibility level differences (BILDs) are typically observed (

The present study evaluated early auditory localization abilities of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with normal or near-normal hearing (NH) in the contralateral ear. The goal of the study was to better understand the effect of CI listening experience on localization in this population. Twenty participants with unilateral hearing loss enrolled in a prospective clinical trial assessing outcomes of cochlear implantation (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02203305). All participants received the MED-EL Standard electrode array, were fit with an ear-level audio processor, and listened with the FS4 coding strategy. Localization was assessed in the sound field using an 11-speaker array with speakers uniformly positioned on a horizontal, semicircular frame. Stimuli were 200-msec speech-shaped noise bursts. The intensity level (52, 62, and 72 dB SPL) and sound source were randomly interleaved across trials. Participants were tested preoperatively, and 1, 3, and 6 months after activation of the audio processor. Performance was evaluated in two conditions at each interval: (1) unaided (NH ear alone [NH-alone] condition), and (2) aided, with either a bone conduction hearing aid (preoperative interval; bone conduction hearing aid + NH condition) or a CI (postoperative intervals; CI + NH condition). Performance was evaluated by comparing root-mean-squared (RMS) error between listening conditions and between measurement intervals. Mean RMS error for the soft, medium, and loud levels were 66°, 64°, and 69° in the NH-alone condition and 72°, 66°, and 70° in the bone conduction hearing aid + NH condition. Participants experienced a significant improvement in localization in the CI + NH condition at the 1-month interval (38°, 35°, and 38°) as compared with the preoperative NH-alone condition. Localization in the CI + NH condition continued to improve through the 6-month interval. Mean RMS errors were 28°, 25°, and 28° in the CI + NH condition at the 6-month interval. Adult CI recipients with normal or near-normal hearing in the contralateral ear experienced significant improvement in localization after 1 month of device use, and continued to improve through the 6-month interval. The present results show that binaural acclimatization in CI users with unilateral hearing loss can progress rapidly, with marked improvements in performance observed after only 1 month of listening experience.

Background Cochlear implants (CIs) can improve speech-in-noise performance for listeners with unilateral sensorineural deafness. But these benefits are modest and in most cases are limited to head-shadow advantages, with little evidence of binaural squelch. Hypothesis The goal of the investigation was to determine whether CI listeners with normal hearing or moderate hearing loss in the contralateral ear would receive a larger head-shadow benefit for target speech and noise originating from opposite sides of the head, and whether listeners would experience binaural squelch in the free field in a test involving interfering talkers. Methods Eleven CI listeners performed a speech-identification task in the presence of interfering noise or speech. Six listeners had single-sided deafness (normal or near-normal audiometric thresholds in the acoustic ear) and five had asymmetric hearing loss (hearing loss in the acoustic ear treated with a hearing aid). Listeners were tested with the acoustic ear only and bilaterally with the CI turned on. One set of conditions examined head-shadow effects with target speech and masking noise presented from azimuths of 0 or ±108 degrees. A second set of conditions examined binaural squelch, with target speech presented from the front and interfering talkers symmetrically placed on both sides. Results On average, the largest head-shadow benefit (5 dB) occurred when the target and masking noise were presented on opposite sides of the head. Listeners also showed an average of 2 dB of squelch, but only when the target speech was masked by interfering talkers of the same sex as the target. Conclusions CIs provide listeners with unilateral deafness important benefits for speech perception in complex spatial environments, including a larger head-shadow benefit when speech and noise originate on opposite sides of the head, and an improved ability to perceptually organize an auditory scene with multiple competing voices.The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US Government.

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare binaural performance of auditory localization task and speech perception in babble measure between children who use a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the other (bimodal fitting) and those who use bilateral CIs. Design Thirteen children (mean age ± SD = 10 ± 2.9 years) with bilateral CIs and 19 children with bimodal fitting were recruited to participate. Sound localization was assessed using a 13-loudspeaker array in a quiet sound-treated booth. Speakers were placed in an arc from -90° azimuth to +90° azimuth (15° interval) in horizontal plane. To assess the accuracy of sound location identification, we calculated the absolute error in degrees between the target speaker and the response speaker during each trial. The mean absolute error was computed by dividing the sum of absolute errors by the total number of trials. We also calculated the hemifield identification score to reflect the accuracy of right/left discrimination. Speech-in-babble perception was also measured in the sound field using target speech presented from the front speaker. Eight-talker babble was presented in the following four different listening conditions: from the front speaker (0°), from one of the two side speakers (+90° or -90°), from both side speakers (±90°). Speech, spatial, and quality questionnaire was administered. Results When the two groups of children were directly compared with each other, there was no significant difference in localization accuracy ability or hemifield identification score under binaural condition. Performance in speech perception test was also similar to each other under most babble conditions. However, when the babble was from the first device side (CI side for children with bimodal stimulation or first CI side for children with bilateral CIs), speech understanding in babble by bilateral CI users was significantly better than that by bimodal listeners. Speech, spatial, and quality scores were comparable with each other between the two groups. Conclusions Overall, the binaural performance was similar to each other between children who are fit with two CIs (CI + CI) and those who use bimodal stimulation (HA + CI) in most conditions. However, the bilateral CI group showed better speech perception than the bimodal CI group when babble was from the first device side (first CI side for bilateral CI users or CI side for bimodal listeners). Therefore, if bimodal performance is significantly below the mean bilateral CI performance on speech perception in babble, these results suggest that a child should be considered to transit from bimodal stimulation to bilateral CIs.

Objectives Many bilateral cochlear implant users show sensitivity to binaural information when stimulation is provided using a pair of synchronized electrodes. However, there is large variability in binaural sensitivity between and within participants across stimulation sites in the cochlea. It was hypothesized that within-participant variability in binaural sensitivity is in part affected by limitations and characteristics of the auditory periphery which may be reflected by monaural hearing performance. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between monaural and binaural hearing performance within participants with bilateral cochlear implants. Design Binaural measures included dichotic signal detection and interaural time difference discrimination thresholds. Diotic signal detection thresholds were also measured. Monaural measures included dynamic range and amplitude modulation detection. In addition, loudness growth was compared between ears. Measures were made at three stimulation sites per listener. Results Greater binaural sensitivity was found with larger dynamic ranges. Poorer interaural time difference discrimination was found with larger difference between comfortable levels of the two ears. In addition, poorer diotic signal detection thresholds were found with larger differences between the dynamic ranges of the two ears. No relationship was found between amplitude modulation detection thresholds or symmetry of loudness growth and the binaural measures. Conclusions The results suggest that some of the variability in binaural hearing performance within listeners across stimulation sites can be explained by factors nonspecific to binaural processing. The results are consistent with the idea that dynamic range and comfortable levels relate to peripheral neural survival and the width of the excitation pattern which could affect the fidelity with which central binaural nuclei process bilateral inputs.

Objectives Cochlear-implant (CI) users with single-sided deafness (SSD)-that is, one normal-hearing (NH) ear and one CI ear-can obtain some unmasking benefits when a mixture of target and masking voices is presented to the NH ear and a copy of just the masking voices is presented to the CI ear. NH listeners show similar benefits in a simulation of SSD-CI listening, whereby a mixture of target and masking voices is presented to one ear and a vocoded copy of the masking voices is presented to the opposite ear. However, the magnitude of the benefit for SSD-CI listeners is highly variable across individuals and is on average less than for NH listeners presented with vocoded stimuli. One possible explanation for the limited benefit observed for some SSD-CI users is that temporal and spectral discrepancies between the acoustic and electric ears might interfere with contralateral unmasking. The present study presented vocoder simulations to NH participants to examine the effects of interaural temporal and spectral mismatches on contralateral unmasking. Design Speech-reception performance was measured in a competing-talker paradigm for NH listeners presented with vocoder simulations of SSD-CI listening. In the monaural condition, listeners identified target speech masked by two same-gender interferers, presented to the left ear. In the bilateral condition, the same stimuli were presented to the left ear, but the right ear was presented with a noise-vocoded copy of the interfering voices. This paradigm tested whether listeners could integrate the interfering voices across the ears to better hear the monaural target. Three common distortions inherent in CI processing were introduced to the vocoder processing: spectral shifts, temporal delays, and reduced frequency selectivity. Results In experiment 1, contralateral unmasking (i.e., the benefit from adding the vocoded maskers to the second ear) was impaired by spectral mismatches of four equivalent rectangular bandwidths or greater. This is equivalent to roughly a 3.6-mm mismatch between the cochlear places stimulated in the electric and acoustic ears, which is on the low end of the average expected mismatch for SSD-CI listeners. In experiment 2, performance was negatively affected by a temporal mismatch of 24 ms or greater, but not for mismatches in the 0 to 12 ms range expected for SSD-CI listeners. Experiment 3 showed an interaction between spectral shift and spectral resolution, with less effect of interaural spectral mismatches when the number of vocoder channels was reduced. Experiment 4 applied interaural spectral and temporal mismatches in combination. Performance was best when both frequency and timing were aligned, but in cases where a mismatch was present in one dimension (either frequency or latency), the addition of mismatch in the second dimension did not further disrupt performance. Conclusions These results emphasize the need for interaural alignment-in timing and especially in frequency-to maximize contralateral unmasking for NH listeners presented with vocoder simulations of SSD-CI listening. Improved processing strategies that reduce mismatch between the electric and acoustic ears of SSD-CI listeners might improve their ability to obtain binaural benefits in multitalker environments.

Introduction: Cochlear implantation (CI) in subjects with unilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss was investigated. The authors of the present study demonstrated the binaural auditory outcomes in a 12-and 36-month prospective cohort outcome study. The present study aimed to do a long-term (LT) evaluation of the auditory outcomes in an analogous study group. Design: LT evaluation was derived from 12 single-sided deaf (SSD) CI recipients and from 11 CI recipients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). A structured interview was conducted with each subjects. Speech perception in noise and sound localization were assessed in a CI OFF and in a CI ON condition. Four binaural effects were calculated: summation effect (S0N0), squelch effect (S0NCI), combined head shadow effect (SCIN0), and spatial release from masking (SRM). At the LT evaluation, the contribution of a CI or a bone conduction device on speech perception in noise was investigated in two challenging spatial configurations in the SSD group. Results: All (23/23) subjects wore their CI 7 days a week at LT followup evaluation, which ranged from 3 to 10 years after implantation. In the SSD group, a significant combined head shadow effect of 3.17 dB and an SRM benefit of 4.33 dB were found. In the AHL group, on the other hand, the summation effect (2.00 dB), the squelch effect (2.67 dB), the combined head shadow effect (3.67 dB), and SRM benefit (2.00 dB) were significant at LT testing. In both the spatial challenging configurations, the speech in noise results was significantly worse in the condition with the bone conduction device compared with the unaided condition. No negative effect was found for the CI ON condition. A significant benefit in the CI ON condition was found for sound localization compared with the CI OFF condition in the SSD group and in the AHL group. Conclusion: All subjects wore their CI 7 days a week at LT follow-up evaluation. The presence of binaural effects has been demonstrated with speech in noise testing, sound localization, and subjective evaluation. In the AHL group, all investigated binaural effects were found to be significant. In the SSD group on the other hand, only SRM and the head shadow, the two most robust binaural effects, were significantly present. However, it took 12M before the SSD and the AHL subjects significantly benefit from the head shadow effect. These reported results could guide counseling of future CI candidates with SSD and AHL in general.

OBJECTIVE There is currently no accepted method of mapping bilateral cochlear-implant (BiCI) users to maximize binaural performance, but the current approach of mapping one ear at a time could produce spatial perceptions that are not consistent with a sound's physical location in space. The goal of this study was to investigate the perceived intracranial lateralization of bilaterally synchronized electrical stimulation with a range of interaural level differences (ILDs) and to determine a method to produce relatively more centered auditory images when provided multielectrode stimulation. DESIGN Using direct stimulation, lateralization curves were measured in nine BiCI listeners using 1000-pulses per second (pps), 500-msec constant-amplitude pulse trains with ILDs that ranged from -20 to +20 clinical current units (CUs). The stimuli were presented bilaterally at 70 to 80% of the dynamic range on single or multiple electrode pairs. For the multielectrode pairs, the ILD was applied consistently across all the pairs. The lateralization response range and the bias magnitude at 0 CU ILD (i.e., the number of CUs needed to produce a centered auditory image) were computed. Then the levels that elicit a centered auditory image with single-electrode stimulation were used with multielectrode stimulation to determine if this produced fewer significant biases at 0 CU ILD. Lastly, a multichannel ILD processing model was used to predict lateralization for the multielectrode stimulation from the single-electrode stimulation. RESULTS BiCI listeners often perceived both single- and multielectrode stimulation at 0-CU ILD as not intracranially centered. For single-electrode stimulation, 44% of the lateralization curves had relatively large (≥5 CU) bias magnitudes. For the multielectrode stimulation, 25% of the lateralization curves had large bias magnitudes. After centering the single-electrode pairs, the percentage of multielectrode combinations that produced large biases significantly decreased to only 4% (p < 0.001, McNemar's test). The lateralization with multielectrode stimulation was well predicted by a model that used unweighted or weighted average single-electrode lateralization percepts across electrode pairs (87 or 90%, respectively). CONCLUSION Current BiCI mapping procedures can produce an inconsistent association between a physical ILD and the perceived location across electrodes for both single- and multielectrode stimulation. Explicit centering of single-electrode pairs using the perceived centered intracranial location almost entirely corrects this problem and such an approach is supported by our understanding and model of across-frequency ILD processing. Such adjustments might be achieved by clinicians using single-electrode binaural comparisons. Binaural abilities, like sound localization and understanding speech in noise, may be improved if these across-electrode perceptual inconsistencies are removed.

The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is a sound-evoked noninvasively measured electrical potential representing the sum of neuronal activity in the auditory brainstem and midbrain. ABR peak amplitudes and latencies are widely used in human and animal auditory research and for clinical screening. The binaural interaction component (BIC) of the ABR stands for the difference between the sum of the monaural ABRs and the ABR obtained with binaural stimulation. The BIC comprises a series of distinct waves, the largest of which (DN1) has been used for evaluating binaural hearing in both normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Based on data from animal and human studies, the authors discuss the possible anatomical and physiological bases of the BIC (DN1 in particular). The effects of electrode placement and stimulus characteristics on the binaurally evoked ABR are evaluated. The authors review how interaural time and intensity differences affect the BIC and, analyzing these dependencies, draw conclusion about the mechanism underlying the generation of the BIC. Finally, the utility of the BIC for clinical diagnoses are summarized.

Hypothesis Adult patients with acquired single-sided deafness (SSD) benefit from binaural hearing after cochlear implantation (CI). Background To spatially separate the signal of interest from noise is of utmost importance for the speech understanding in challenging listening situations. This ability, however, largely depends on binaural hearing. CI in acquired SSD restores hearing on the deaf ear. This study intended to test, if this is accompanied by a restoration of binaural functions of the auditory system. Methods Eleven CI users with SSD and normal hearing to mild sensorineural hearing loss in the contralateral ear participated in this study. Speech reception thresholds (SRT) were obtained using the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) sentence test in competing two talker babble noise. To evaluate spatial release from masking, seven spatial configurations of speech and noise were used in a free field setup: noise originated from 0 degree, ±45 degrees and ±90 degrees incidence angles, whereas speech was either presented from the front or ±90 degrees. In addition, localization ability in the frontal horizontal plane was assessed with a 1 s Comite Consultatif International Telephonique et Telegraphique (CCITT) noise stimulus using an array of nine equally spaced loudspeakers. All tests were conducted in acoustic normal hearing ear alone (AH) and aided conditions. Results In conditions with spatially separated signal and noise sources, significant benefit of the aided over the AH condition was observed, even when noise was presented from the AH side. Localization ability significantly improved in the aided condition. Conclusion The present data demonstrates that spatial release from masking can be restored in patients with SSD using a cochlear implant.

One of the most rudimentary and functionally important aspects of human functioning is the emergence of spatial hearing skills that enable children to localize sound and to segregate speech from background maskers or interferers. A child’s ability to understand speech in noisy conditions is likely to facilitate learning in mainstream classroom environments, as well as socialization in everyday situations. A hallmark of spatial hearing abilities is the dependence of the listener on the manner in which the auditory system integrates inputs arriving from sound in space at the two ears. This integration, in normal hearing systems, is mediated by an intricate neuronal circuitry in the brainstem, with auditory mechanisms that are tuned to spatial information. In children with normal hearing (NH), the spatial system utilizes binaural cues with great precision, and the development of the neural circuitry is fairly refined by 4–5 years of age [1] [2]. This early development of spatial hearing likely depends on experience with normal acoustic cues. Unlike NH children, children who are deaf and hear through cochlear implants receive auditory cues that are degraded with regard to numerous stimulus features (for review see [3, 4]). Thus, an important and timely question with regard to bilaterally implanted children is whether they demonstrate maturation of spatial hearing with additional exposure to bilateral stimulation. To the extent that they do, data would suggest that they are able to learn to utilize the information in order to function on tasks that require integration of inputs from the two ears. To the extent they do not, would suggest that either the necessary cues are not available to the children, or possibly that the cues may be available but the children are not using them. In a recent study[5] with 21 children using BiCIs, 11/21 children had root mean square (RMS) errors that were smaller when they used both CIs than when a single CI was activated, suggesting that they experienced a bilateral benefit. When using both CIs, performance was highly variable amongst the 21 children; RMS errors ranged from 19°–56°, compared to the 5-year-old NH group who had RMS errors ranging from 9°–29°. Similar differences between CI users and NH children were found by van Deun and colleagues[6]. More recently Zheng and colleagues [7] investigated emergence of sound localization skills in a group of 19 bilaterally implanted children, and reported that with additional experience listening through BiCIs, most children improve, as seen in reduced localization errors. The error types were further analyzed to better understand whether the pattern of errors change with experience. Performance ranged from ‘poor localization’ to ‘hemifield discrimination’ (i.e. ability to discriminate left/right) to ‘good spatial hearing mapping’ (i.e. ability to identify source locations within the right or left hemifield). Notably, children tended to improve on the localization task with added experience, as evidenced by reduced localization errors. In the present study, the goal was to assess the ability of children with BiCIs to hear speech in the presence of background interference, when the interferers were either co-located with the target speech (both in front), or separated from the target speech. Of the 20 children tested here, 11 were also tested on localization as reported by Zheng and colleagues [7], and for those children some comparisons are made between the speech-in-noise data and the localization results. This study sought to determine whether children demonstrate improvement on speech reception thresholds (SRTs), and/or on their ability to benefit from spatial separation of the target and interferers.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the objective and subjective long-term binaural benefits of surgical correction in children with unilateral congenital aural atresia, using an open-set sentence test in noise and subjective questionnaires. DESIGN A prospective study was performed between August 2010 and February 2013. This study included pediatric patients who had unilateral conductive hearing loss (normal bone conduction hearing) on the atretic side but normal air conduction hearing on the normal side and were scheduled to undergo a primary canaloplasty. Pure-tone audiometry, the hearing in noise test (HINT), and questionnaires (Sound-Spatial-Qualities of Hearing Scale; Glasgow Benefit Inventory [GBI]) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS Among 34 consecutive patients who initially met enrollment criteria, 26 subjects (23 boys and 3 girls) aged 10 to 16 years (mean 12.3 years) completed this study. Canaloplasty and hearing restoration procedures were performed uneventfully in all patients. The mean air conduction thresholds were significantly improved from 63.9 to 35.0 dB (6 months) and 39.4 dB (12 months) after surgery (p < 0.001). In HINT, speech understanding in noise that was presented toward the newly opened atretic ear significantly improved at 1 year postoperatively (p = 0.014). In noise toward the normal ear, speech understanding significantly improved after surgery, from -0.1 dB preoperatively to -2.0 dB at 6 months (p = 0.002) and -1.8 dB at 12 months (p = 0.005) (p for quadratic trend = 0.036). The composite score improved from -2.6 dB preoperatively to -3.4 dB at 6 months and -3.6 dB at 12 months (p = 0.045; p for linear trend = 0.005). The Sound-Spatial-Qualities of Hearing Scale scores in all domains significantly improved 1 year after surgery (p < 0.034). The mean GBI scores in each domain ranged from 14.2 to 49.4. Total GBI score was correlated with better signal to noise ratio in noise toward the atretic ear as measured by HINT at postoperative 1 year (Spearman ρ = 0.482, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS Teenaged patients with unilateral congenital aural atresia showed satisfactory hearing improvement after canaloplasty with hearing restoration surgery. In a serial long-term follow-up, speech understanding in noise measured by HINT improved over time. One year after surgery, teenaged children acquired binaural hearing (binaural squelch), as measured by the HINT with noise presented to the newly opened atretic ear. Subjective questionnaires also showed improvements in binaural hearing function and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES The first aim of the study was to quantify the change in clinical performance after cochlear implantation for adults who had pre-operative levels of acoustic hearing in each ear of greater than or equal to 46% phoneme score on an open-set monosyllabic word test, and who subsequently experienced loss of useable acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. Pre- and postoperative spatial hearing abilities were assessed, because a clinical consideration for candidates with bilateral acoustic hearing is the potential for post-operative reduction in spatial hearing ability. Second, it was of interest to examine whether preoperative localization ability, as an indicator of access to interaural timing and level cues preoperatively, might be correlated with post-operative change in spatial hearing abilities. DESIGN Clinical performance measures in the binaural condition were obtained preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively in 19 postlinguistically hearing-impaired adult subjects. Preoperative localization ability was investigated as a potential correlate with post-operative change in spatial hearing abilities. RESULTS Significant postoperative group mean improvement in speech perception was observed on measures of open-set monosyllabic word perception in quiet and on an adaptive sentence test presented in coincident 4-talker babble. Observed benefit was greater for a lower presentation level of 55 dB SPL as compared with a conversational speech level of 65 dB SPL. Self-reported ratings of benefit also improved for all questionnaires administered. Objective assessment of localization ability revealed poorer localization postoperatively, although subjective ratings of post-operative change in localization ability in real-world environments were more variable. Postoperative spatial release from masking was not different to that measured preoperatively for the configuration where the side of the head with the hearing aid was advantaged, but improved postoperatively for the configuration that advantaged the implanted side. Preoperative binaural localization ability was not correlated with postoperative spatial hearing abilities. CONCLUSIONS The findings from this study support cochlear implantation for candidates with pre-operative levels of binaural acoustic hearing within the range examined within the present study. This includes subjects with preoperative open-set monosyllabic word scores ranging from 11 to 62% in the implanted ear, and from 16 to 75% on the contralateral side. Post-operative improvement would be expected for those subjects on a range of clinical measures, even when acoustic hearing was lost in the implanted ear after implantation.

OBJECTIVES In a previous study, ) investigated whether pure-tone average (PTA) hearing loss and working memory capacity (WMC) modulate benefit from different binaural noise reduction (NR) settings. Results showed that listeners with smaller WMC preferred strong over moderate NR even at the expense of poorer speech recognition due to greater speech distortion (SD), whereas listeners with larger WMC did not. To enable a better understanding of these findings, the main aims of the present study were (1) to explore the perceptual consequences of changes to the signal mixture, target speech, and background noise caused by binaural NR, and (2) to determine whether response to these changes varies with WMC and PTA. DESIGN As in the previous study, four age-matched groups of elderly listeners (with N = 10 per group) characterized by either mild or moderate PTAs and either better or worse performance on a visual measure of WMC participated. Five processing conditions were tested, which were based on the previously used (binaural coherence-based) NR scheme designed to attenuate diffuse signal components at mid to high frequencies. The five conditions differed in terms of the type of processing that was applied (no NR, strong NR, or strong NR with restoration of the long-term stimulus spectrum) and in terms of whether the target speech and background noise were processed in the same manner or whether one signal was left unprocessed while the other signal was processed with the gains computed for the signal mixture. Comparison across these conditions allowed assessing the effects of changes in high-frequency audibility (HFA), SD, and noise attenuation and distortion (NAD). Outcome measures included a dual-task paradigm combining speech recognition with a visual reaction time (VRT) task as well as ratings of perceived effort and overall preference. All measurements were carried out using headphone simulations of a frontal target speaker in a busy cafeteria. RESULTS Relative to no NR, strong NR was found to impair speech recognition and VRT performance slightly and to improve perceived effort and overall preference markedly. Relative to strong NR, strong NR with restoration of the long-term stimulus spectrum and thus HFA did not affect speech recognition, restored VRT performance to that achievable with no NR, and increased perceived effort and reduced overall preference markedly. SD had negative effects on speech recognition and perceived effort, particularly when both speech and noise were processed with the gains computed for the signal mixture. NAD had positive effects on speech recognition, perceived effort, and overall preference, particularly when the target speech was left unprocessed. VRT performance was unaffected by SD and NAD. None of the datasets exhibited any clear signs that response to the different signal changes varies with PTA or WMC. CONCLUSIONS For the outcome measures and stimuli applied here, the present study provides little evidence that PTA or WMC affect response to changes in HFA, SD, and NAD caused by binaural NR. However, statistical power restrictions suggest further research is needed. This research should also investigate whether partial HFA restoration combined with some pre-processing that reduces co-modulation distortion results in a more favorable balance of the effects of binaural NR across outcome dimensions and whether NR strength has any influence on these results.

Objectives Although previous research indicates that cognitive skills influence benefit from different types of hearing aid algorithms, comparatively little is known about the role of, and potential interaction with, hearing loss. This holds true especially for noise reduction (NR) processing. The purpose of the present study was thus to explore whether degree of hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural NR settings based on measures of speech intelligibility, listening effort, and overall preference. Design Forty elderly listeners with symmetrical sensorineural hearing losses in the mild to severe range participated. They were stratified into four age-matched groups (with n = 10 per group) based on their pure-tone average hearing losses and their performance on a visual measure of working memory (WM) capacity. The algorithm under consideration was a binaural coherence-based NR scheme that suppressed reverberant signal components as well as diffuse background noise at mid to high frequencies. The strength of the applied processing was varied from inactive to strong, and testing was carried out across a range of fixed signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Potential benefit was assessed using a dual-task paradigm combining speech recognition with a visual reaction time (VRT) task indexing listening effort. Pairwise preference judgments were also collected. All measurements were made using headphone simulations of a frontal speech target in a busy cafeteria. Test-retest data were gathered for all outcome measures. Results Analysis of the test-retest data showed all data sets to be reliable. Analysis of the speech scores showed that, for all groups, speech recognition was unaffected by moderate NR processing, whereas strong NR processing reduced intelligibility by about 5%. Analysis of the VRT scores revealed a similar data pattern. That is, while moderate NR did not affect VRT performance, strong NR impaired the performance of all groups slightly. Analysis of the preference scores collapsed across SNR showed that all groups preferred some over no NR processing. Furthermore, the two groups with smaller WM capacity preferred strong over moderate NR processing; for the two groups with larger WM capacity, preference did not differ significantly between the moderate and strong settings. Conclusions The present study demonstrates that, for the algorithm and the measures of speech recognition and listening effort used here, the effects of different NR settings interact with neither degree of hearing loss nor WM capacity. However, preferred NR strength was found to be associated with smaller WM capacity, suggesting that hearing aid users with poorer cognitive function may prefer greater noise attenuation even at the expense of poorer speech intelligibility. Further research is required to enable a more detailed (SNR-dependent) analysis of this effect and to test its wider applicability.

Objectives The benefit attributable to spatial separation of speech and noise was measured as a function of low-pass cutoff frequency with and without bilateral hearing aids. Design Fourteen younger and 10 older adults with normal hearing and 12 older adults with mild-to-moderate sloping high frequency hearing loss were included to assess the effects of age and hearing loss. Subjects with hearing loss were provided commercially available bilateral hearing aids. Consonant recognition was measured at 70 dB SPL in a background of speech-shaped noise at 66 dB SPL. Speech and noise were low-pass filtered at 1.7, 3.4, and 7.1 kHz. Nonsense syllables were always at 0° and noise was at either 0° or 90°. Speech and noise spectra for all conditions were digitally recorded using a probe microphone placed in each ear canal of each subject. Spectra and levels of speech, and quiet thresholds for narrowband noises, were used to calculate the Articulation Index and provide predictions of unaided and aided (hearing-impaired only) consonant recognition, spatial benefit, and hearing aid benefit for each condition. Subjective ratings of workload (NASA Task Load Index) were obtained for all unaided and aided measures of speech recognition. Results Consonant recognition in noise improved for all groups with speech and noise spatially separated and with the addition of high-frequency speech information. Scores were poorer overall for the older adults with hearing loss than for the other groups. For normal-hearing subjects, observed scores and spatial benefit were better than predicted. For hearing-impaired subjects, scores did not significantly improve with hearing aids, even with higher frequencies and spatial separation, and were poorer than predicted especially for aided listening. Similar to subjects with normal hearing, spatial benefit for hearing-impaired subjects was larger than predicted. Conclusions Younger and older adults with normal hearing benefited from spatial separation of speech and noise sources to a greater extent than predicted based on simple audibility. Thus, no age-related deficits in the use of interaural difference cues were observed. Although hearing aid benefit was negligible, perceived listening effort was lower aided than unaided, especially with spatial separation. Articulation Index predictions revealed that speech audibility was generally restored with hearing aids across a wide bandwidth of speech, especially in the far ear. Thus, reduced audibility was not a primary factor in limited hearing aid benefit, suggesting that peripheral, central-auditory and/or cognitive changes may have played a role. In contrast, unaided and aided spatial benefit was better than predicted, and spatial benefit was slightly larger with hearing aids than without. Thus, these older adults with hearing loss using bilateral hearing aids were able to take advantage of binaural cues to improve consonant recognition in noise.

Cochlear implants (CI) are well established in the treatment of severe-to-profound hearing loss. Current US criteria for implantation include prelingual children 12 months or older with binaural profound sensorineural hearing loss and postlingual adults with binaural severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss with minimal speech perception using best aided conditions (1). Over the past several decades, subject performance postimplant has steadily increased (2). Current implants, however, are still limited in their functional ability to provide a high resolution of pitches (3). Therefore, subjects are unable to fully appreciate music or to understand speech in crowded environments (3). At the current time, 3 manufacturer's cochlear implant devices are available in the United States (3). These implants have electrodes that are 10 to 31 mm in length and use up to 22 intracochlear electrode contacts to deliver impulses tonotopically to the cochlear nerve (2,3). It has been proposed that increasing the number of electrode stimulating sites will improve music appreciation and speech recognition in crowded situations (3). Current electrode designs prevent increasing electrode density because of the small size of the human cochlea scala tympani (3). Expanding the number of electrodes would increase the overall diameter of current implants and subsequently inhibit successful, atraumatic insertion. Thin film arrays (TFAs) were proposed to overcome this problem. Early TFA electrode designs, although efficacious with respect to activating auditory nerve fibers, were unable to be advanced past the basal turn of the cochlea, limiting the portion of the cochlea available for stimulation (3). This limitation was thought to be due to the thin-film silicone substrate lacking the mechanical flexibility (4). To overcome this design constraint, researchers at the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, in collaboration with Georgia Regents University created a prototype polymeric TFA coupled with an insertion test device in hopes of gaining successful insertion (3). This study is a continuation of a previous implantation trial of TFAs into cadaveric human temporal bones using an insertion test device (ITD) backed TFA electrode. The ITD was similar in size to a cochlear implant electrode but lacked the current conducting component. It had a maximal insertion length of 17 mm to a T-stopper, and the array did not extend beyond its length. Results showed successful insertion of the TFA past the basal turn of the cochlea with a mean insertion depth of 17 mm. The authors concluded that their TFA electrode could be successfully and reliably inserted into human cochlea with minimal trauma when using the insertion test device (3). The end goal for the TFA electrode is to create an improved implant for use in humans. Before implantable devices can be used as human prostheses, however, function, efficacy, and safety must be documented in an animal model. Several previous studies have noted successful cochlear implantation in cats, with reliably observed responses to sound and the ability to elicit evoked auditory brainstem responses (2,5,6). The aim of this study was to implant a modified silicone coated TFA electrode cochlear implant in live cats to test the in vivo characteristics.

ObjectiveTo compare sensory reweighting between soccer players who report higher exposure to soccer heading and those who report lower exposure to soccer heading.BackgroundExposure to repetitive head impacts (RHI), such as through routine soccer heading, may have potentially detrimental effects.Design/MethodsThirty participants completed a self-reported questionnaire to estimate the number of RHI sustained weekly, and were divided into low-, medium-, and high-RHI groups based on their responses. Sensory reweighting was compared between low-RHI (N = 10, 4 males, 22.9 ± 3.0 years, 170.5 ± 7.7 cm, 70.0 ± 12.14 kg, 2 ± 2 RHI) and high-RHI groups (N = 10, 5 males, 20.0 ± 1.1 years, 170.4 ± 7.4 cm, 69.6 ± 13.4 kg, 60 ± 37 RHI). Participants experienced a visual stimulus at 0.2 Hz, a ±1 mA binaural monopolar galvanic vestibular stimulus (GVS) at 0.36 Hz, and a vibratory stimulus to their bilateral Achilles tendons at 0.28 Hz during standing. The visual stimulus was presented at different amplitudes (0.2, 0.8 m translation in the anterior-posterior direction) to measure the change in leg gain to vision, gain to vibration, and gain to GVS. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare sensory reweighting between groups.ResultsThere were group differences in sensory reweighting for leg gain to GVS (i.e. condition X group effect; F3,54 = 5.068, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.220), whereby the high-RHI group did not reweight gain to GVS across conditions, and gain to vision (F3,54 = 3.397, p = 0.024, η2 = 0.159), whereby the high-RHI group had higher gains than the low-RHI group in the 0.2 m visual stimulus condition. There were no group differences in sensory reweighting for gain to vibration (F1,18 = 0.045, p = 0.834, η2 = 0.003).ConclusionsRoutine soccer heading is associated with relatively high head accelerations. These results suggest that exposure to frequent RHI may induce adaptation that diminishes reliance on vestibular function. Consequently, visual feedback is upweighted to maintain balance during upright stance.

Review question What are the effects of binaural beat technology on physiological and psychological outcomes in adults? Review objective The review objective is to determine the current evidence related to the effectiveness of binaural beat technology on physiological and psychological outcomes in adults. Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider studies that include all adults who are aged 18 or over. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest This review will include studies that evaluate the effects of binaural beat technology on physiological and psychological responses in adults. The comparator will be no binaural beat technology. Types of outcomes This review will consider studies that include physiological and psychological outcomes. The primary outcomes include depression and anxiety. The secondary outcomes are blood pressure, electroencephalography and heart rate variability.

OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to measure and compare speech perception in users of electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) supported by a hearing aid in the unimplanted ear and in bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users under different noise and sound field conditions. Gap listening was assessed by comparing performance in unmodulated and modulated Comite Consultatif International Telephonique et Telegraphique (CCITT) noise conditions, and binaural interaction was investigated by comparing single source and multisource sound fields. METHODS Speech perception in noise was measured using a closed-set sentence test (Oldenburg Sentence Test, OLSA) in a multisource noise field (MSNF) consisting of a four-loudspeaker array with independent noise sources and a single source in frontal position (S0N0). Speech simulating noise (Fastl-noise), CCITT-noise (continuous), and OLSA-noise (pseudo continuous) served as noise sources with different temporal patterns. Speech tests were performed in two groups of subjects who were using either EAS (n = 12) or bilateral CIs (n = 10). All subjects in the EAS group were fitted with a high-power hearing aid in the opposite ear (bimodal EAS). The average group score on monosyllable in quiet was 68.8% (EAS) and 80.5% (bilateral CI). A group of 22 listeners with normal hearing served as controls to compare and evaluate potential gap listening effects in implanted patients. RESULTS Average speech reception thresholds in the EAS group were significantly lower than those for the bilateral CI group in all test conditions (CCITT 6.1 dB, p = 0.001; Fastl-noise 5.4 dB, p < 0.01; Oldenburg-(OL)-noise 1.6 dB, p < 0.05). Bilateral CI and EAS user groups showed a significant improvement of 4.3 dB (p = 0.004) and 5.4 dB (p = 0.002) between S0N0 and MSNF sound field conditions respectively, which signifies advantages caused by bilateral interaction in both groups. Performance in the control group showed a significant gap listening effect with a difference of 6.5 dB between modulated and unmodulated noise in S0N0, and a difference of 3.0 dB in MSNF. The ability to "glimpse" into short temporal masker gaps was absent in both groups of implanted subjects. CONCLUSIONS Combined EAS in one ear supported by a hearing aid on the contralateral ear provided significantly improved speech perception compared with bilateral cochlear implantation. Although the scores for monosyllable words in quiet were higher in the bilateral CI group, the EAS group performed better in different noise and sound field conditions. Furthermore, the results indicated that binaural interaction between EAS in one ear and residual acoustic hearing in the opposite ear enhances speech perception in complex noise situations. Both bilateral CI and bimodal EAS users did not benefit from short temporal masker gaps, therefore the better performance of the EAS group in modulated noise conditions could be explained by the improved transmission of fundamental frequency cues in the lower-frequency region of acoustic hearing, which might foster the grouping of auditory objects.

Objectives This study investigated whether a spectral mismatch across ears influences the benefit of redundancy, squelch, and head shadow differently in speech perception using acoustic simulation of bilateral cochlear implant (CI) processing. Design Ten normal-hearing subjects participated in the study, and acoustic simulations of CIs were used to test these subjects. Sentence recognition, presented unilaterally and bilaterally, was measured at +5 dB and +10 dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) with bilaterally matched and mismatched conditions. Unilateral and bilateral CIs were simulated using 8-channel sine wave vocoders. Binaural spectral mismatch was introduced by changing the relative simulated insertion depths across ears. Subjects were tested while listening with headphones; head-related transfer functions were applied before the vocoder processing to preserve natural interaural level and time differences. Results For both SNRs, greater and more consistent binaural benefit of squelch and redundancy occurred for the matched condition whereas binaural interference of squelch and redundancy occurred for the mismatched condition. However, significant binaural benefit of head shadow existed irrespective of spectral mismatches and SNRs. Conclusions The results suggest that bilateral spectral mismatch may have a negative impact on the binaural benefit of squelch and redundancy for bilateral CI users. The results also suggest that clinical mapping should be carefully administrated for bilateral CI users to minimize the difference in spectral patterns between the two CIs.

Objectives: To develop a predictive model of spatial release from masking (SRM) for cochlear implantees, and validate this model against data from the literature. To establish the spatial configurations for which the model predicts a large advantage of bilateral over unilateral implantation. To collect data to support these predictions and generate predictions of more typical advantages of bilateral implantation. Design: The model initially assumed that bilateral cochlear implantees had equally effective implants on each side, with which they could perform optimal better-ear listening. Predictions were compared with measurements of SRM, using one and two implants with up to three interfering noises. The effect of relaxing the assumption of equally effective implants was explored. Novel measurements of SRM for eight unilateral implantees were collected, including measurements using speech and noise at azimuths of ± 60 degrees, and compared with prediction. A spatial map of bilateral implant benefit was generated for a situation with one interfering noise in anechoic conditions, and predictions of benefit were generated from binaural room impulse responses in a variety of real rooms. Results: The model accurately predicted data from a previous study for multiple interfering noises in a variety of spatial configurations, even when implants were assumed to be equally effective (r = 0.97). It predicted that the maximum benefit of bilateral implantation was 18 dB. Predictions were little affected if the implants were not assumed to be equally effective. The new measurements supported the 18 dB advantage prediction. The spatial map of predicted benefit showed that, for a listener facing the target voice, bilateral implantees could enjoy an advantage of about 10 dB over unilateral implantees in a wide range of situations. Predictions based on real-room measurements with speech and noise at 1 m showed that large benefits can occur even in reverberant spaces. Conclusions: In optimal conditions, the benefit of bilateral implantation to speech intelligibility in noise can be much larger than has previously been reported. This benefit is thus considerably larger than reported benefits of summation or squelch and is robust in reverberation when the interfering source is close.

Objectives Dynamic-range compression is routinely used in bilaterally fitted hearing devices. The objective of this study was to investigate how compression applied independently at each ear affects spatial perception in normal-hearing listeners and to relate the effects to changes in binaural cues caused by the compression for different types of sound. Design A semantic-differential method was used to measure the spatial attributes of sounds. Eleven normal-hearing participants responded to questions addressing certainty of location, diffuseness, movement, image splits, and externalization of sounds. Responses were given on seven-point scales between pairs of opposing terms. Stimuli included speech and a range of synthetic sounds with varying characteristics. Head-related transfer functions were used to simulate a source at an azimuth of -60° or +60°. Three processing conditions were compared: (1) an unprocessed reference condition; (2) fast-acting, wide-dynamic-range compression operating independently at each ear; and (3) imposition of a static bias in interaural level difference (ILD) equivalent to that generated by the compression under steady state conditions. All processing was applied in a high-frequency channel above 2 kHz. The three processing conditions were compared separately in two bandwidth conditions: a high-pass condition in which the high-frequency channel was presented to listeners in isolation and a full-bandwidth condition in which the high-frequency channel was recombined with the unprocessed low-frequency channel. Results Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to group related questions based on similarity of participants' responses. This led to the calculation of composite scores for four spatial attributes: "diffuseness," "movement," "image split," and "externalization." Compared with the unprocessed condition, fast-acting compression significantly increased diffuseness, movement, and image-split scores and significantly reduced externalization scores. The effects of compression were greater when listeners heard the high-frequency channel in isolation than when it was recombined with the unprocessed low-frequency channel. The effects were apparent only for sounds containing gradual onsets and offsets, including speech. Dynamic compression had a much more pronounced effect on the spatial attributes of sounds than imposition of a static bias in ILD. Conclusions Fast-acting compression at high frequencies operating independently at each ear can adversely affect the spatial attributes of sounds in normal-hearing listeners by increasing diffuseness, increasing or giving rise to a sense of movement, causing images to split, and affecting the externalization of sounds. The effects are reduced, but not eliminated, when listeners have access to undisturbed low-frequency cues. Sounds containing gradual onsets and offsets, including speech, are most affected. The effects arise primarily as a result of relatively slow changes in ILD that are generated as the sound level at one or both ears crosses the compression threshold. The results may have implications for the use of compression in bilaterally fitted hearing devices, specifically in relation to spatial perception in dynamic situations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the electrophysiological binaural beat steady state response as a gauge of temporal fine structure coding, particularly as it relates to the aging auditory system. The hypothesis was that the response would be more robust in a lower, than in a higher, frequency region and in younger, than in older, adults. DESIGN: Two experiments were undertaken. The first measured the 40 Hz binaural beat steady state response elicited by tone pairs in two frequency regions: lower (390 and 430 Hz tone pair) and higher (810 and 850 Hz tone pair). Frequency following responses (FFRs) evoked by the tones were also recorded. Ten young adults with normal hearing participated. The second experiment measured the binaural beat and FFRs in older adults but only in the lower frequency region. Fourteen older adults with relatively normal hearing participated. Response metrics in both experiments included response component signal-to-noise ratio (F statistic) and magnitude-squared coherence. RESULTS: Experiment 1 showed that FFRs were elicited in both frequency regions but were more robust in the lower frequency region. Binaural beat responses elicited by the lower frequency pair of tones showed greater amplitude fluctuation within a participant than the respective FFRs. Experiment 2 showed that older adults exhibited similar FFRs to younger adults, but proportionally fewer older participants showed binaural beat responses. Age differences in onset responses were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: The lower prevalence of the binaural beat response in older adults, despite the presence of FFRs, provides tentative support for the sensitivity of this measure to age-related deficits in temporal processing. However, the lability of the binaural beat response advocates caution in its use as an objective measure of fine structure coding.

Long-term binaural auditory deprivation is associated with poorer speech recognition outcomes after cochlear implantation, even for postlingual hearing loss. It is, however, unknown to what extent the outcomes of implantation are related to the peripheral changes occurring monaurally or to changes at a higher level in the auditory system related to binaural deafness. This retrospective study aimed to unravel peripheral and central contributions to cochlear implantation outcomes by comparing outcomes obtained in individual ears for adults with long-term monaural auditory deprivation (i.e. unilateral use of hearing aid) who received bilateral cochlear implants. Results showed that similar outcomes can be obtained with the implant placed in the auditory-deprived or in the aided ear. This suggests that the peripheral changes related to monaural auditory deprivation have little effect on outcomes of cochlear implantation.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between electrophysiologic measures of the binaural interaction component (BIC) of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response and psychophysical measures of interaural pitch comparisons in Nucleus bilateral cochlear implant users.: Data were collected for 10 postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users. Each subject conducted an interaural pitch-comparison task using a biphasic pulse train with a pulse rate of 1000 pulses per second (pps) at high stimulation levels. Stimuli were presented in a two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice procedure with roving current variations. A subgroup of four subjects repeated the task at low stimulation levels. BICs were measured using loudness balanced, biphasic current pulses presented at a rate of 19.9 pps for each subject by pairing the electrode 12 (out of 22 intracochlear electrodes) in the right ear with each of 11 electrodes spaced across the electrode array in the left ear. The BIC was measured at high stimulation levels in 10 subjects and at low stimulation levels in 7 subjects. Because of differences in stimulation rate used in BIC measures and interaural pitch comparisons, the actual stimulation levels were different in these two measures. The relationship between BIC responses and results of interaural pitch comparisons was evaluated for each of the individual subjects and at the group level. Evaluation was carried out separately for results obtained at high and low stimulation levels.: There was no significant correlation between results of BIC measures and interaural pitch comparisons on either the individual or group levels. Lower stimulation level did not improve the relationship between these two measures.: No significant correlations between psychophysical measures of interaural pitch comparisons and electrophysiologic measures of the BIC of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response were found. The lack of correlation may be attributed to methods used to quantify the data, small number of subjects retested at low stimulation levels, and central processing components involved in the interaural pitch-comparison task.