Cargando…

An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception

This study describes sound localization and speech-recognition-in-noise abilities of a cochlear-implant user with electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) in one ear, and a hearing aid in the contralateral ear. This listener had low-frequency, up to 250 Hz, residual hearing within the normal range in both...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sharma, Snandan, Mens, Lucas H. M., Snik, Ad F. M., van Opstal, A. John, van Wanrooij, Marc M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598447/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31293495
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00637
_version_ 1783430774074114048
author Sharma, Snandan
Mens, Lucas H. M.
Snik, Ad F. M.
van Opstal, A. John
van Wanrooij, Marc M.
author_facet Sharma, Snandan
Mens, Lucas H. M.
Snik, Ad F. M.
van Opstal, A. John
van Wanrooij, Marc M.
author_sort Sharma, Snandan
collection PubMed
description This study describes sound localization and speech-recognition-in-noise abilities of a cochlear-implant user with electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) in one ear, and a hearing aid in the contralateral ear. This listener had low-frequency, up to 250 Hz, residual hearing within the normal range in both ears. The objective was to determine how hearing devices affect spatial hearing for an individual with substantial unaided low-frequency residual hearing. Sound-localization performance was assessed for three sounds with different bandpass characteristics: low center frequency (100–400 Hz), mid center frequency (500–1,500 Hz) and high frequency broad-band (500–20,000 Hz) noise. Speech recognition was assessed with the Dutch Matrix sentence test presented in noise. Tests were performed while the listener used several on-off combinations of the devices. The listener localized low-center frequency sounds well in all hearing conditions, but mid-center frequency and high frequency broadband sounds were localized well almost exclusively in the completely unaided condition (mid-center frequency sounds were also localized well with the EAS device alone). Speech recognition was best in the fully aided condition with speech presented in the front and noise presented at either side. Furthermore, there was no significant improvement in speech recognition with all devices on, compared to when the listener used her cochlear implant only. Hearing aids and cochlear implant impair high frequency spatial hearing due to improper weighing of interaural time and level difference cues. The results reinforce the notion that hearing symmetry is important for sound localization. The symmetry is perturbed by the hearing devices for higher frequencies. Speech recognition depends mainly on hearing through the cochlear implant and is not significantly improved with the added information from hearing aids. A contralateral hearing aid provides benefit when the noise is spatially separated from the speech. However, this benefit is explained by the head shadow in that ear, rather than by an ability to spatially segregate noise from speech, as sound localization was perturbed with all devices in use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6598447
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65984472019-07-10 An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception Sharma, Snandan Mens, Lucas H. M. Snik, Ad F. M. van Opstal, A. John van Wanrooij, Marc M. Front Neurol Neurology This study describes sound localization and speech-recognition-in-noise abilities of a cochlear-implant user with electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) in one ear, and a hearing aid in the contralateral ear. This listener had low-frequency, up to 250 Hz, residual hearing within the normal range in both ears. The objective was to determine how hearing devices affect spatial hearing for an individual with substantial unaided low-frequency residual hearing. Sound-localization performance was assessed for three sounds with different bandpass characteristics: low center frequency (100–400 Hz), mid center frequency (500–1,500 Hz) and high frequency broad-band (500–20,000 Hz) noise. Speech recognition was assessed with the Dutch Matrix sentence test presented in noise. Tests were performed while the listener used several on-off combinations of the devices. The listener localized low-center frequency sounds well in all hearing conditions, but mid-center frequency and high frequency broadband sounds were localized well almost exclusively in the completely unaided condition (mid-center frequency sounds were also localized well with the EAS device alone). Speech recognition was best in the fully aided condition with speech presented in the front and noise presented at either side. Furthermore, there was no significant improvement in speech recognition with all devices on, compared to when the listener used her cochlear implant only. Hearing aids and cochlear implant impair high frequency spatial hearing due to improper weighing of interaural time and level difference cues. The results reinforce the notion that hearing symmetry is important for sound localization. The symmetry is perturbed by the hearing devices for higher frequencies. Speech recognition depends mainly on hearing through the cochlear implant and is not significantly improved with the added information from hearing aids. A contralateral hearing aid provides benefit when the noise is spatially separated from the speech. However, this benefit is explained by the head shadow in that ear, rather than by an ability to spatially segregate noise from speech, as sound localization was perturbed with all devices in use. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6598447/ /pubmed/31293495 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00637 Text en Copyright © 2019 Sharma, Mens, Snik, van Opstal and van Wanrooij. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neurology
Sharma, Snandan
Mens, Lucas H. M.
Snik, Ad F. M.
van Opstal, A. John
van Wanrooij, Marc M.
An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception
title An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception
title_full An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception
title_fullStr An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception
title_full_unstemmed An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception
title_short An Individual With Hearing Preservation and Bimodal Hearing Using a Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aids Has Perturbed Sound Localization but Preserved Speech Perception
title_sort individual with hearing preservation and bimodal hearing using a cochlear implant and hearing aids has perturbed sound localization but preserved speech perception
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598447/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31293495
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00637
work_keys_str_mv AT sharmasnandan anindividualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT menslucashm anindividualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT snikadfm anindividualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT vanopstalajohn anindividualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT vanwanrooijmarcm anindividualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT sharmasnandan individualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT menslucashm individualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT snikadfm individualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT vanopstalajohn individualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception
AT vanwanrooijmarcm individualwithhearingpreservationandbimodalhearingusingacochlearimplantandhearingaidshasperturbedsoundlocalizationbutpreservedspeechperception