Limits...
Contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to bimodal speech and music perception.

Crew JD, Galvin JJ, Landsberger DM, Fu QJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: In general, CI+HA performance was slightly improved relative to the better ear alone (CI-only) for SRTs but not for MCI, with some subjects experiencing a decrease in bimodal MCI performance relative to the better ear alone (HA-only).Individual performance was highly variable, and the contribution of either device to bimodal perception was both subject- and task-dependent.The results suggest that individualized mapping of CIs and HAs may further improve bimodal speech and music perception.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Cochlear implant (CI) users have difficulty understanding speech in noisy listening conditions and perceiving music. Aided residual acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear can mitigate these limitations. The present study examined contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to speech understanding in noise and melodic pitch perception. Data was collected with the CI only, the hearing aid (HA) only, and both devices together (CI+HA). Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were adaptively measured for simple sentences in speech babble. Melodic contour identification (MCI) was measured with and without a masker instrument; the fundamental frequency of the masker was varied to be overlapping or non-overlapping with the target contour. Results showed that the CI contributes primarily to bimodal speech perception and that the HA contributes primarily to bimodal melodic pitch perception. In general, CI+HA performance was slightly improved relative to the better ear alone (CI-only) for SRTs but not for MCI, with some subjects experiencing a decrease in bimodal MCI performance relative to the better ear alone (HA-only). Individual performance was highly variable, and the contribution of either device to bimodal perception was both subject- and task-dependent. The results suggest that individualized mapping of CIs and HAs may further improve bimodal speech and music perception.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

MCI performance for individual subjects across hearing devices and masker condition.CI-only performance is shown by the black bars, HA-only performance is shown by the white bars, and CI+HA performance is shown by the gray bars. Mean performance is shown at the far right within each masker condition; error bars indicate standard error. MCI with No Masker is shown in the top panel, MCI with the overlapping, A3 Masker is shown in the middle panel, and MCI with the non-overlapping, A6 Masker is shown in the bottom panel.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4366155&req=5

pone.0120279.g005: MCI performance for individual subjects across hearing devices and masker condition.CI-only performance is shown by the black bars, HA-only performance is shown by the white bars, and CI+HA performance is shown by the gray bars. Mean performance is shown at the far right within each masker condition; error bars indicate standard error. MCI with No Masker is shown in the top panel, MCI with the overlapping, A3 Masker is shown in the middle panel, and MCI with the non-overlapping, A6 Masker is shown in the bottom panel.

Mentions: Fig. 5 shows individual subjects’ MCI performance for the different listening and masker conditions; mean performance is shown at right. Data in Fig. 5 were averaged across the semitone spacing conditions. For all masker conditions, MCI performance was generally best with HA-only and worst with CI-only. Only subjects S3 and S9 performed better than 50% correct with the CI-only for any masker condition; chance performance was 11.1%. CI+HA performance relative to best ear performance was variable across subjects. For example, subject S1 seemed to experience perceptual interference (CI+HA < HA) when listening with both devices in some masker conditions, and subject S4 seemed to focus on the better ear (CI+HA ≈ HA). Some subjects (S2 and S5) seemed to experience additive integration in bimodal listening (CI+HA > HA); interestingly these were the poorest performing subjects overall. A three-way RM ANOVA showed significant main effects for hearing mode [F(2,16) = 12.7, p < 0.001], masker condition [F(2,16) = 8.5, p = 0.003], and semitone spacing [F(2,16) = 25.1, p < 0.001]. The observed power was greater than 0.9 for all main effects. A significant interaction was observed only between masker condition and semitone spacing [F(4,32) = 3.3, p = 0.022] with an observed power of 0.781. Post-hoc paired t-tests revealed significant differences after Bonferroni corrections (αcrit = 0.017) for the following: CI vs. HA (p = 0.0042), CI vs. CI+HA (p = 0.0087), No Masker vs. A3 Masker (p = 0.0065), 1 Semitone vs. 2 Semitones (p = 0.0055), and 1 Semitone vs. 3 Semitones (p < 0.001).


Contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to bimodal speech and music perception.

Crew JD, Galvin JJ, Landsberger DM, Fu QJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

MCI performance for individual subjects across hearing devices and masker condition.CI-only performance is shown by the black bars, HA-only performance is shown by the white bars, and CI+HA performance is shown by the gray bars. Mean performance is shown at the far right within each masker condition; error bars indicate standard error. MCI with No Masker is shown in the top panel, MCI with the overlapping, A3 Masker is shown in the middle panel, and MCI with the non-overlapping, A6 Masker is shown in the bottom panel.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4366155&req=5

pone.0120279.g005: MCI performance for individual subjects across hearing devices and masker condition.CI-only performance is shown by the black bars, HA-only performance is shown by the white bars, and CI+HA performance is shown by the gray bars. Mean performance is shown at the far right within each masker condition; error bars indicate standard error. MCI with No Masker is shown in the top panel, MCI with the overlapping, A3 Masker is shown in the middle panel, and MCI with the non-overlapping, A6 Masker is shown in the bottom panel.
Mentions: Fig. 5 shows individual subjects’ MCI performance for the different listening and masker conditions; mean performance is shown at right. Data in Fig. 5 were averaged across the semitone spacing conditions. For all masker conditions, MCI performance was generally best with HA-only and worst with CI-only. Only subjects S3 and S9 performed better than 50% correct with the CI-only for any masker condition; chance performance was 11.1%. CI+HA performance relative to best ear performance was variable across subjects. For example, subject S1 seemed to experience perceptual interference (CI+HA < HA) when listening with both devices in some masker conditions, and subject S4 seemed to focus on the better ear (CI+HA ≈ HA). Some subjects (S2 and S5) seemed to experience additive integration in bimodal listening (CI+HA > HA); interestingly these were the poorest performing subjects overall. A three-way RM ANOVA showed significant main effects for hearing mode [F(2,16) = 12.7, p < 0.001], masker condition [F(2,16) = 8.5, p = 0.003], and semitone spacing [F(2,16) = 25.1, p < 0.001]. The observed power was greater than 0.9 for all main effects. A significant interaction was observed only between masker condition and semitone spacing [F(4,32) = 3.3, p = 0.022] with an observed power of 0.781. Post-hoc paired t-tests revealed significant differences after Bonferroni corrections (αcrit = 0.017) for the following: CI vs. HA (p = 0.0042), CI vs. CI+HA (p = 0.0087), No Masker vs. A3 Masker (p = 0.0065), 1 Semitone vs. 2 Semitones (p = 0.0055), and 1 Semitone vs. 3 Semitones (p < 0.001).

Bottom Line: In general, CI+HA performance was slightly improved relative to the better ear alone (CI-only) for SRTs but not for MCI, with some subjects experiencing a decrease in bimodal MCI performance relative to the better ear alone (HA-only).Individual performance was highly variable, and the contribution of either device to bimodal perception was both subject- and task-dependent.The results suggest that individualized mapping of CIs and HAs may further improve bimodal speech and music perception.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Cochlear implant (CI) users have difficulty understanding speech in noisy listening conditions and perceiving music. Aided residual acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear can mitigate these limitations. The present study examined contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to speech understanding in noise and melodic pitch perception. Data was collected with the CI only, the hearing aid (HA) only, and both devices together (CI+HA). Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were adaptively measured for simple sentences in speech babble. Melodic contour identification (MCI) was measured with and without a masker instrument; the fundamental frequency of the masker was varied to be overlapping or non-overlapping with the target contour. Results showed that the CI contributes primarily to bimodal speech perception and that the HA contributes primarily to bimodal melodic pitch perception. In general, CI+HA performance was slightly improved relative to the better ear alone (CI-only) for SRTs but not for MCI, with some subjects experiencing a decrease in bimodal MCI performance relative to the better ear alone (HA-only). Individual performance was highly variable, and the contribution of either device to bimodal perception was both subject- and task-dependent. The results suggest that individualized mapping of CIs and HAs may further improve bimodal speech and music perception.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus