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

Boxplots of MCI performance as a function of semitone spacing, for the different listening and masker conditions.The columns indicate hearing device (CI, HA, and CI+HA) and the rows indicate masker condition (No Masker, A3 Masker, A6 Masker). The edges of the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the solid line represents the median, the dashed line represents the mean, the error bars indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles, and the points outside of the error bars indicate outliers.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0120279.g006: Boxplots of MCI performance as a function of semitone spacing, for the different listening and masker conditions.The columns indicate hearing device (CI, HA, and CI+HA) and the rows indicate masker condition (No Masker, A3 Masker, A6 Masker). The edges of the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the solid line represents the median, the dashed line represents the mean, the error bars indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles, and the points outside of the error bars indicate outliers.

Mentions: Fig. 6 shows the effect of semitone spacing on MCI performance for different hearing mode and masker conditions. CI-only performance was generally poor and less variable (except for outlier S3) compared with HA-only and CI+HA performance; this was most likely due to floor effects. Performance generally improved as the semitone spacing increased. Performance with the HA alone was much better but also more variable across subjects, relative to CI-only performance. HA-only performance generally improved with increasing semitone spacing. CI+HA performance was generally poorer with 1-semitone spacing, and better with the 2- and 3-semitone spacing conditions (though there was little difference between the 2- and 3-semitone spacings). With 1-semitone spacing, the mean HA performance for the No Masker condition was 65.2% correct, while the mean HA performance for the A3 overlapping masker condition was 46.9% correct. This suggests that subjects had difficulty segregating the overlapping contours even when fine structure cues were available in the HA. With 1-semitone spacing, mean CI+HA performance for the No Masker and the A6 Masker conditions was 60.7% and 55.8% correct, respectively. This suggests that listeners were able to selectively attend to the target when the masker was spatially remote. A similar pattern of results was observed with the HA-only for the No Masker and A6 masker conditions.


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

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

Boxplots of MCI performance as a function of semitone spacing, for the different listening and masker conditions.The columns indicate hearing device (CI, HA, and CI+HA) and the rows indicate masker condition (No Masker, A3 Masker, A6 Masker). The edges of the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the solid line represents the median, the dashed line represents the mean, the error bars indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles, and the points outside of the error bars indicate outliers.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0120279.g006: Boxplots of MCI performance as a function of semitone spacing, for the different listening and masker conditions.The columns indicate hearing device (CI, HA, and CI+HA) and the rows indicate masker condition (No Masker, A3 Masker, A6 Masker). The edges of the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the solid line represents the median, the dashed line represents the mean, the error bars indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles, and the points outside of the error bars indicate outliers.
Mentions: Fig. 6 shows the effect of semitone spacing on MCI performance for different hearing mode and masker conditions. CI-only performance was generally poor and less variable (except for outlier S3) compared with HA-only and CI+HA performance; this was most likely due to floor effects. Performance generally improved as the semitone spacing increased. Performance with the HA alone was much better but also more variable across subjects, relative to CI-only performance. HA-only performance generally improved with increasing semitone spacing. CI+HA performance was generally poorer with 1-semitone spacing, and better with the 2- and 3-semitone spacing conditions (though there was little difference between the 2- and 3-semitone spacings). With 1-semitone spacing, the mean HA performance for the No Masker condition was 65.2% correct, while the mean HA performance for the A3 overlapping masker condition was 46.9% correct. This suggests that subjects had difficulty segregating the overlapping contours even when fine structure cues were available in the HA. With 1-semitone spacing, mean CI+HA performance for the No Masker and the A6 Masker conditions was 60.7% and 55.8% correct, respectively. This suggests that listeners were able to selectively attend to the target when the masker was spatially remote. A similar pattern of results was observed with the HA-only for the No Masker and A6 masker conditions.

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