Cargando…

Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears

In bimodal listening, cochlear implant (CI) users combine electric hearing (EH) in one ear and acoustic hearing (AH) in the other ear. In electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), CI users combine EH and AH in the same ear. In quiet, integration of EH and AH has been shown to be better with EAS, but with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Willis, Shelby, Moore, Brian C. J., Galvin, John J., Fu, Qian-Jie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561114/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33057396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240752
_version_ 1783595201791524864
author Willis, Shelby
Moore, Brian C. J.
Galvin, John J.
Fu, Qian-Jie
author_facet Willis, Shelby
Moore, Brian C. J.
Galvin, John J.
Fu, Qian-Jie
author_sort Willis, Shelby
collection PubMed
description In bimodal listening, cochlear implant (CI) users combine electric hearing (EH) in one ear and acoustic hearing (AH) in the other ear. In electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), CI users combine EH and AH in the same ear. In quiet, integration of EH and AH has been shown to be better with EAS, but with greater sensitivity to tonotopic mismatch in EH. The goal of the present study was to evaluate how external noise might affect integration of AH and EH within or across ears. Recognition of monosyllabic words was measured for normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal (AH or EH alone), EAS, and bimodal listening in quiet and in speech-shaped steady noise (10 dB, 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio). The input/output frequency range for AH was 0.1–0.6 kHz. EH was simulated using an 8-channel noise vocoder. The output frequency range was 1.2–8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth. The input frequency range was either matched (1.2–8.0 kHz) or mismatched (0.6–8.0 kHz) to the output frequency range; the mismatched input range maximized the amount of speech information, while the matched input resulted in some speech information loss. In quiet, tonotopic mismatch differently affected EAS and bimodal performance. In noise, EAS and bimodal performance was similarly affected by tonotopic mismatch. The data suggest that tonotopic mismatch may differently affect integration of EH and AH in quiet and in noise.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7561114
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75611142020-10-21 Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears Willis, Shelby Moore, Brian C. J. Galvin, John J. Fu, Qian-Jie PLoS One Research Article In bimodal listening, cochlear implant (CI) users combine electric hearing (EH) in one ear and acoustic hearing (AH) in the other ear. In electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), CI users combine EH and AH in the same ear. In quiet, integration of EH and AH has been shown to be better with EAS, but with greater sensitivity to tonotopic mismatch in EH. The goal of the present study was to evaluate how external noise might affect integration of AH and EH within or across ears. Recognition of monosyllabic words was measured for normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal (AH or EH alone), EAS, and bimodal listening in quiet and in speech-shaped steady noise (10 dB, 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio). The input/output frequency range for AH was 0.1–0.6 kHz. EH was simulated using an 8-channel noise vocoder. The output frequency range was 1.2–8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth. The input frequency range was either matched (1.2–8.0 kHz) or mismatched (0.6–8.0 kHz) to the output frequency range; the mismatched input range maximized the amount of speech information, while the matched input resulted in some speech information loss. In quiet, tonotopic mismatch differently affected EAS and bimodal performance. In noise, EAS and bimodal performance was similarly affected by tonotopic mismatch. The data suggest that tonotopic mismatch may differently affect integration of EH and AH in quiet and in noise. Public Library of Science 2020-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7561114/ /pubmed/33057396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240752 Text en © 2020 Willis et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Willis, Shelby
Moore, Brian C. J.
Galvin, John J.
Fu, Qian-Jie
Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears
title Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears
title_full Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears
title_fullStr Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears
title_full_unstemmed Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears
title_short Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears
title_sort effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561114/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33057396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240752
work_keys_str_mv AT willisshelby effectsofnoiseonintegrationofacousticandelectrichearingwithinandacrossears
AT moorebriancj effectsofnoiseonintegrationofacousticandelectrichearingwithinandacrossears
AT galvinjohnj effectsofnoiseonintegrationofacousticandelectrichearingwithinandacrossears
AT fuqianjie effectsofnoiseonintegrationofacousticandelectrichearingwithinandacrossears