Search

PurposeFor colocated targets and maskers, binaural listening typically offers a small but significant advantage over monaural listening. This study investigated how monaural asymmetry and target–masker similarity may limit binaural advantage in adults and children.MethodTen Mandarin-speaking Chinese adults (aged 22–27 years) and 12 children (aged 7–14 years) with normal hearing participated in the study. Monaural and binaural speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were adaptively measured for colocated competing speech. The target–masker sex was the same or different. Performance was measured using headphones for three listening conditions: left ear, right ear, and both ears. Binaural advantage was calculated relative to the poorer or better ear.ResultsMean SRTs were significantly lower for adults than children. When the target–masker sex was the same, SRTs were significantly lower with the better ear than with the poorer ear or both ears (p< .05). When the target–masker sex was different, SRTs were significantly lower with the better ear or both ears than with the poorer ear (p< .05). Children and adults similarly benefitted from target–masker sex differences. Substantial monaural asymmetry was observed, but the effects of asymmetry on binaural advantage were similar between adults and children. Monaural asymmetry was significantly correlated with binaural advantage relative to the poorer ear (p= .004), but not to the better ear (p= .056).ConclusionsBinaural listening may offer little advantage (or even a disadvantage) over monaural listening with the better ear, especially when competing talkers have similar vocal characteristics. Monaural asymmetry appears to limit binaural advantage in listeners with normal hearing, similar to observations in listeners with hearing impairment. While language development may limit perception of competing speech, it does not appear to limit the effects of monaural asymmetry or target–masker sex on binaural advantage.

Children with normal hearing (CNH) have greater difficulty segregating competing speech than do adults with normal hearing (ANH). Children with cochlear implants (CCI) have greater difficulty segregating competing speech than do CNH. In the present study, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in competing speech were measured in Chinese Mandarin-speaking ANH, CNH, and CCIs. Target sentences were produced by a male Mandarin-speaking talker. Maskers were time-forward or -reversed sentences produced by a native Mandarin-speaking male (different from the target) or female or a non-native English-speaking male. The SRTs were lowest (best) for the ANH group, followed by the CNH and CCI groups. The masking release (MR) was comparable between the ANH and CNH group, but much poorer in the CCI group. The temporal properties differed between the native and non-native maskers and between forward and reversed speech. The temporal properties of the maskers were significantly associated with the SRTs for the CCI and CNH groups but not for the ANH group. Whereas the temporal properties of the maskers were significantly associated with the MR for all three groups, the association was stronger for the CCI and CNH groups than for the ANH group.

Semicircular canal dehiscence (SCD) syndrome is rare, and its diagnosis is a significant challenge in clinical practice. Our aim was to explore application of the loud sound stimulation test for diagnosing SCD syndrome. Eight cases of superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD), among them two patients had bilateral dehiscences and one case of lateral semicircular canal dehiscence (LSCD). A total of 11 dehiscences were studied retrospectively. Loud sounds (pure tones, 100 dB, 110 dB nHL) at frequencies of 500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz were used to stimulate both ears for 5 s. A temporal bone computed tomography (CT) scan with semicircular canal reconstruction was performed in all patients. Vertigo was present in seven of nine cases following loud sound stimulation. In addition, the patient with LSCD demonstrated horizontal eye movement following loud sound stimulation, whereas six patients with SSCD showed rotational eye movement. Among them, two patients with bilateral superior canal dehiscence showed a positive response to the loud sound stimulation in only one ear. The diagnoses of all patients were confirmed with a high-resolution temporal bone CT with corresponding multi-planar reconstruction of the affected semicircular canals with various size dehiscences. We conclude that the characteristic eye movement following loud sound stimulation is valuable for diagnosing SCD syndrome. In addition, the loud sound stimulation test has unique advantages, especially for confirming the affected ear and the corresponding semicircular canal.