Loudness adaptation in acoustic and electric hearing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tang Q
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2504588 | biostudies-other | 2006 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionClinically, recording hearing detection thresholds and representing them in an audiogram is the most common way of evaluating hearing loss and starting the fitting of hearing devices. As an extension, we present the loudness audiogram, which does not only show auditory thresholds but also visualizes the full course of loudness growth across frequencies. The benefit of this approach was evaluated in subjects who rely on both electric (cochlear implant) and acoustic (hearing aid) hearing.MethodsIn a group of 15 bimodal users, loudness growth was measured with the cochlear implant and hearing aid separately using a loudness scaling procedure. Loudness growth curves were constructed, using a novel loudness function, for each modality and then integrated in a graph plotting frequency, stimulus intensity level, and loudness perception. Bimodal benefit, defined as the difference between wearing a cochlear implant and hearing aid together versus wearing only a cochlear implant, was assessed for multiple speech outcomes.ResultsLoudness growth was related to bimodal benefit for speech recognition in noise and to some aspects of speech quality. No correlations between loudness and speech in quiet were found. Patients who had predominantly unequal loudness input from the hearing aid, gained more bimodal benefit for speech recognition in noise compared to those patients whose hearing aid provided mainly equivalent input.ConclusionResults show that loudness growth is related to bimodal benefit for speech recognition in noise and to some aspects of speech quality. Subjects who had different input from the hearing aid compared to CI, generally gained more bimodal benefit compared to those patients whose hearing aid provided mainly equivalent input. This suggests that bimodal fitting to create equal loudness at all frequencies may not always be beneficial for speech recognition.
| S-EPMC10118154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigated potential cues to sound segregation by cochlear implant (CI) and normal-hearing (NH) listeners. In each presentation interval of experiment 1a, CI listeners heard a mixture of four pulse trains applied concurrently to separate electrodes, preceded by a "probe" applied to a single electrode. In one of these two intervals, which the subject had to identify, the probe electrode was the same as a "target" electrode in the mixture. The pulse train on the target electrode had a higher level than the others in the mixture. Additionally, it could be presented either with a 200-ms onset delay, at a lower rate, or with an asynchrony produced by delaying each pulse by about 5 ms re those on the nontarget electrodes. Neither the rate difference nor the asynchrony aided performance over and above the level difference alone, but the onset delay produced a modest improvement. Experiment 1b showed that two subjects could perform the task using the onset delay alone, with no level difference. Experiment 2 used a method similar to that of experiment 1, but investigated the onset cue using NH listeners. In one condition, the mixture consisted of harmonics 5 to 40 of a 100-Hz fundamental, with the onset of either harmonics 13 to 17 or 26 to 30 delayed re the rest. Performance was modest in this condition, but could be improved markedly by using stimuli containing a spectral gap between the target and nontarget harmonics. The results suggest that (a) CI users are unlikely to use temporal pitch differences between adjacent channels to separate concurrent sounds, and that (b) they can use onset differences between channels, but the usefulness of this cue will be compromised by the spread of excitation along the nerve-fiber array. This deleterious effect of spread-of-excitation can also impair the use of onset cues by NH listeners.
| S-EPMC2538412 | biostudies-other
Project description:In single-sided deafness patients fitted with a cochlear implant (CI) in the affected ear and preserved normal hearing in the other ear, acoustic and electric hearing can be directly compared without the need for an external control group. Although poor pitch perception is a crucial limitation when listening through CIs, it remains unclear how exactly the cortical processing of pitch information differs between acoustic and electric hearing. Hence, we separately presented both ears of 20 of these patients with vowel sequences in which the pitch contours were either repetitive or variable, while simultaneously recording functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and EEG data. Overall, the results showed smaller and delayed auditory cortex activity in electric hearing, particularly for the P2 event-related potential component, which appears to reflect the processing of voice pitch information. Both the fNIRS data and EEG source reconstructions furthermore showed that vowel sequences with variable pitch contours evoked additional activity in posterior right auditory cortex in electric but not acoustic hearing. This surprising discrepancy demonstrates, firstly, that the acoustic detail transmitted by CIs is sufficient to distinguish between speech sounds that only vary regarding their pitch information. Secondly, the absence of a condition difference when stimulating the normal-hearing ears suggests a saturation of cortical activity levels following unilateral deafness. Taken together, these results provide strong evidence in favour of using CIs in this patient group.
| S-EPMC9483634 | biostudies-literature
Project 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.
| S-EPMC7561114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stilp and Kluender [(2010). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107(27), 12387-12392] reported measures of sensory change over time (cochlea-scaled spectral entropy, CSE) reliably predicted sentence intelligibility for normal-hearing listeners. Here, implications for listeners with atypical hearing were explored using noise-vocoded speech. CSE was parameterized as Euclidean distances between biologically scaled spectra [measured before sentences were noise vocoded (CSE)] or between channel amplitude profiles in simulated cochlear-implant processing [measured after vocoding (CSE(CI))]. Sentence intelligibility worsened with greater amounts of information replaced by noise; patterns of performance did not differ between CSE and CSE(CI). Results demonstrate the importance of information-bearing change for speech perception in simulated electric hearing.
| S-EPMC3562329 | biostudies-other
Project description:Because of the poor spectral resolution in cochlear implants (CIs), fundamental frequency (F0) cues are not well preserved. Chinese-speaking CI users may have great difficulty understanding speech produced by competing talkers, due to conflicting tones. In this study, normal-hearing listeners' concurrent Chinese syllable recognition was measured with unprocessed speech and CI simulations. Concurrent syllables were constructed by summing two vowels from a male talker (with identical mean F0's) or one vowel from each of a male and a female talker (with a relatively large F0 separation). CI signal processing was simulated using four- and eight-channel noise-band vocoders; the degraded spectral resolution may limit listeners' ability to utilize talker and/or tone differences. The results showed that concurrent speech recognition was significantly poorer with the CI simulations than with unprocessed speech. There were significant interactions between the talker and speech-processing conditions, e.g., better tone and syllable recognitions with the male-female condition for unprocessed speech, and with the male-male condition for eight-channel speech. With the CI simulations, competing tones interfered with concurrent-tone and syllable recognitions, but not vowel recognition. Given limited pitch cues, subjects were unable to use F0 differences between talkers or tones for concurrent Chinese syllable recognition.
| S-EPMC2806442 | biostudies-other
Project description:Advances in cochlear implant (CI) technology allow for acoustic and electric hearing to be combined within the same ear (electric-acoustic stimulation, or EAS) and/or across ears (bimodal listening). Integration efficiency (IE; the ratio between observed and predicted performance for acoustic-electric hearing) can be used to estimate how well acoustic and electric hearing are combined. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors that affect IE in EAS and bimodal listening. Vowel recognition was measured in normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal, EAS, and bimodal listening. The input/output frequency range for acoustic hearing was 0.1-0.6 kHz. For CI simulations, the output frequency range was 1.2-8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth and the input frequency range was varied to provide increasing amounts of speech information and tonotopic mismatch. Performance was best when acoustic and electric hearing was combined in the same ear. IE was significantly better for EAS than for bimodal listening; IE was sensitive to tonotopic mismatch for EAS, but not for bimodal listening. These simulation results suggest acoustic and electric hearing may be more effectively and efficiently combined within rather than across ears, and that tonotopic mismatch should be minimized to maximize the benefit of acoustic-electric hearing, especially for EAS.
| S-EPMC5624923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to assess the frequency-position function resulting from electric stimulation of electrodes in cochlear implant subjects with significant residual hearing in their nonimplanted ear. Six cochlear implant users compared the pitch of the auditory sensation produced by stimulation of an intracochlear electrode to the pitch of acoustic pure tones presented to their contralateral nonimplanted ear. Subjects were implanted with different Clarion electrode arrays, designed to lie close to the inner wall of the cochlea. High-resolution radiographs were used to determine the electrode positions in the cochlea. Four out of six subjects presented electrode insertions deeper than 450 degrees . We used a two-interval (one acoustic, one electric), two-alternative forced choice protocol (2I-2AFC), asking the subject to indicate which stimulus sounded the highest in pitch. Pure tones were used as acoustic stimuli. Electric stimuli consisted of trains of biphasic pulses presented at relatively high rates [higher than 700 pulses per second (pps)]. First, all electric stimuli were balanced in loudness across electrodes. Second, acoustic pure tones, chosen to approximate roughly the pitch sensation produced by each electrode, were balanced in loudness to electric stimuli. When electrode insertion lengths were used to describe electrode positions, the pitch sensations produced by electric stimulation were found to be more than two octaves lower than predicted by Greenwood's frequency-position function. When insertion angles were used to describe electrode positions, the pitch sensations were found about one octave lower than the frequency-position function of a normal ear. The difference found between both descriptions is because of the fact that these electrode arrays were designed to lie close to the modiolus. As a consequence, the site of excitation produced at the level of the organ of Corti corresponds to a longer length than the electrode insertion length, which is used in Greenwood's function. Although exact measurements of the round window position as well as the length of the cochlea could explain the remaining one octave difference found when insertion angles were used, physiological phenomena (e.g., stimulation of the spiral ganglion cells) could also create this difference. From these data, analysis filters could be determined in sound coding strategies to match the pitch percepts elicited by electrode stimulation. This step might be of main importance for music perception and for the fitting of bilateral cochlear implants.
| S-EPMC2504582 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHarmony is an important part of tonal music that conveys context, form and emotion. Two notes sounded simultaneously form a harmonic interval. In normal-hearing (NH) listeners, some harmonic intervals (e.g., minor 2nd, tritone, major 7th) typically sound more dissonant than others (e.g., octave, major 3rd, 4th). Because of the limited spectro-temporal resolution afforded by cochlear implants (CIs), music perception is generally poor. However, CI users may still be sensitive to relative dissonance across intervals. In this study, dissonance ratings for harmonic intervals were measured in 11 unilaterally deaf CI patients, in whom ratings from the CI could be compared to those from the normal ear.MethodsStimuli consisted of pairs of equal amplitude MIDI piano tones. Intervals spanned a range of two octaves relative to two root notes (F3 or C4). Dissonance was assessed in terms of subjective pleasantness ratings for intervals presented to the NH ear alone, the CI ear alone, and both ears together (NH + CI). Ratings were collected for both root notes for within- and across-octave intervals (1-12 and 13-24 semitones). Participants rated the pleasantness of each interval by clicking on a line anchored with "least pleasant" and "most pleasant." A follow-up experiment repeated the task with a smaller stimulus set.ResultsWith NH-only listening, within-octave intervals minor 2nd, major 2nd, and major 7th were rated least pleasant; major 3rd, 5th, and octave were rated most pleasant. Across-octave counterparts were similarly rated. With CI-only listening, ratings were consistently lower and showed a reduced range. Mean ratings were highly correlated between NH-only and CI-only listening (r = 0.845, p < 0.001). Ratings were similar between NH-only and NH + CI listening, with no significant binaural enhancement/interference. The follow-up tests showed that ratings were reliable for the least and most pleasant intervals.DiscussionAlthough pleasantness ratings were less differentiated for the CI ear than the NH ear, there were similarities between the two listening modes. Given the lack of spectro-temporal detail needed for harmonicity-based distinctions, temporal envelope interactions (within and across channels) associated with a perception of roughness may contribute to dissonance perception for harmonic intervals with CI-only listening.
| S-EPMC6733976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTinnitus is the result of aberrant neuronal activity. As a novel treatment form, neuromodulation is used to modify neuronal activity of brain areas involved in tinnitus generation. Among the different forms of electric stimulation, transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) has been shown to be a promising treatment option for tinnitus. In addition, recent studies indicate that the reduction in tinnitus can be more pronounced when different modalities of stimulation techniques are combined ("bimodal stimulation"). TRNS can be used in combination with acoustic stimulation (AS), a further treatment option recognized in the literature. The aim of the proposed study is to investigate whether simultaneous tRNS and AS improve levels of tinnitus loudness and distress.MethodsThe intervention consists of bilateral high-definition tRNS (HD-tRNS) over the auditory cortex combined with the application of AS which is studied in a crossover design. The visits will be performed in 26 sessions. There will be 20 treatment sessions, divided into two blocks: active and sham HD-tRNS. Within the blocks, the interventions are divided into group A: HD-tRNS and AS, and group B: HD-tRNS alone. Furthermore, in addition to the assessments directly following the intervention sessions, there will be six extra sessions performed subsequently at the end of each block, after a period of some days (follow-ups 1 and 2) and a month after the last intervention (C). Primary outcome measures are analog scales for evaluation of subjective tinnitus loudness and distress, and the audiological measurement of minimum masking level (MML). Secondary outcome measures are brain activity as measured by electroencephalography and standardized questionnaires for evaluating tinnitus distress and severity.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which uses HD-tRNS combined with AS for tinnitus treatment. The crossover design permits the comparison between HD-tRNS active vs. sham and with vs. without AS. Thus, it will be possible to evaluate the efficacy of the combined approach to HD-tRNS alone. In addition, the use of different objective and subjective evaluations for tinnitus enable more reliable and valid results.Trial registrationSwiss Ethics Committee (BASEC-Nr. 2020-02027); Swiss Federal Complementary Database (kofam.ch: SNCTP000004051 ); and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04551404 ).
| S-EPMC9118607 | biostudies-literature