Two groups of cochlear implant (CI) listeners were tested for sound source localization and for speech recognition in complex listening environments. One group (n=11) wore bilateral CIs and, potentially, had access to interaural level difference (ILD) cues, but not interaural timing difference (ITD) cues. The second group (n=12) wore a…
Two groups of cochlear implant (CI) listeners were tested for sound source localization and for speech recognition in complex listening environments. One group (n=11) wore bilateral CIs and, potentially, had access to interaural level difference (ILD) cues, but not interaural timing difference (ITD) cues. The second group (n=12) wore a single CI and had low-frequency, acoustic hearing in both the ear contralateral to the CI and in the implanted ear. These `hearing preservation' listeners, potentially, had access to ITD cues but not to ILD cues. At issue in this dissertation was the value of the two types of information about sound sources, ITDs and ILDs, for localization and for speech perception when speech and noise sources were separated in space. For Experiment 1, normal hearing (NH) listeners and the two groups of CI listeners were tested for sound source localization using a 13 loudspeaker array. For the NH listeners, the mean RMS error for localization was 7 degrees, for the bilateral CI listeners, 20 degrees, and for the hearing preservation listeners, 23 degrees. The scores for the two CI groups did not differ significantly. Thus, both CI groups showed equivalent, but poorer than normal, localization. This outcome using the filtered noise bands for the normal hearing listeners, suggests ILD and ITD cues can support equivalent levels of localization. For Experiment 2, the two groups of CI listeners were tested for speech recognition in noise when the noise sources and targets were spatially separated in a simulated `restaurant' environment and in two versions of a `cocktail party' environment. At issue was whether either CI group would show benefits from binaural hearing, i.e., better performance when the noise and targets were separated in space. Neither of the CI groups showed spatial release from masking. However, both groups showed a significant binaural advantage (a combination of squelch and summation), which also maintained separation of the target and noise, indicating the presence of some binaural processing or `unmasking' of speech in noise. Finally, localization ability in Experiment 1 was not correlated with binaural advantage in Experiment 2.
The aim of this article was to study sound source localization by cochlear implant (CI) listeners with low-frequency (LF) acoustic hearing in both the operated ear and in the contralateral ear. Eight CI listeners had symmetrical LF acoustic hearing and 4 had asymmetrical LF acoustic hearing. The effects of two…
The aim of this article was to study sound source localization by cochlear implant (CI) listeners with low-frequency (LF) acoustic hearing in both the operated ear and in the contralateral ear. Eight CI listeners had symmetrical LF acoustic hearing and 4 had asymmetrical LF acoustic hearing. The effects of two variables were assessed: (i) the symmetry of the LF thresholds in the two ears and (ii) the presence/absence of bilateral acoustic amplification. Stimuli consisted of low-pass, high-pass, and wideband noise bursts presented in the frontal horizontal plane. Localization accuracy was 23° of error for the symmetrical listeners and 76° of error for the asymmetrical listeners. The presence of a unilateral CI used in conjunction with bilateral LF acoustic hearing does not impair sound source localization accuracy, but amplification for acoustic hearing can be detrimental to sound source localization accuracy.
