Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
REVIEW PAPER
THE PSYCHOPHYSICS OF LOW-FREQUENCY ACOUSTIC
HEARING IN ELECTRIC AND ACOUSTIC STIMULATION (EAS)
AND BIMODAL PATIENTS
1
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
2
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Publication date: 2012-06-30
Corresponding author
Rene H. Gifford
Rene H. Gifford, Vanderbilt University, Department of Hearing and Speech Science, 1215 21st Avenue South, MCE South, Room 9302, Nashville, TN 37232, USA, e-mail: rene.h.gifford@vanderbilt.edu
Rene H. Gifford, Vanderbilt University, Department of Hearing and Speech Science, 1215 21st Avenue South, MCE South, Room 9302, Nashville, TN 37232, USA, e-mail: rene.h.gifford@vanderbilt.edu
J Hear Sci 2012;2(2):33-44
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a review of the current literature on psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing, both before and
after implantation, with a focus on frequency selectivity, nonlinear cochlear processing, and speech perception in temporally modulated maskers for bimodal listeners as well as patients with hearing preservation in the implanted ear and receiving
combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). In this paper we review our work, the work of others, and report results not
previously published for speech perception in steady-state and temporally fluctuating maskers; the degree of masking release
and frequency resolution for 11 bimodal, 6 hearing preservation patients; and 5 control subjects with normal hearing. The results demonstrate that a small masking release is possible with acoustic hearing in just one ear, with the degree of masking release being correlated with the low-frequency pure tone average in the non-implanted ear; furthermore, frequency selectivity
as defined by the width of the auditory filter was not correlated with the degree of masking release. Descriptions of the clinical utility of hearing preservation in the implanted ear for improving speech perception in complex listening environments,
as well as directions for the future, are discussed.
REFERENCES (76)
1.
Von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Tillein J et al: Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. ORL, 1999; 61: 334–40.
2.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A: A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit, 2003; 9(4): CS20–24.
3.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A: Preservation of lowfrequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation. International Congress Series, 2004; 1273: 239–42.
4.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I: Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 2006; 126: 934–40.
5.
Gantz BJ, Turner CW: Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope, 2003; 113, 1726–30.
6.
Gantz BJ, Turner CW: Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 2004; 124: 334–47.
7.
Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, BaumgartnerWD et al: Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 2004; 124: 348–52.
8.
Gantz BJ, Turner CW, Gfeller KE, Lowder M: Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope, 2005; 115: 796–802.
9.
Gantz BJ, Turner CW, Gfeller KE: Acoustic plus electric speech processing: preliminary results of a multicenter clinical trial of the Iowa/Nucleus Hybrid implant. Audiol Neurootol, 2006; 11(Suppl.1): 63–68.
10.
Gantz BJ, Hansen MR, Turner CW et al: Hybrid 10 clinical trial. Audiol Neurotol, 2009; 14(Suppl.1): 32–38.
11.
Kiefer J, Pok M, Adunka O et al: Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol Neurotol, 2005; 10: 134–44.
12.
Luetje CM, Thedinger BS, Buckler LR et al: Hybrid cochlear implantation: clinical results and critical review of 13 cases. Otol Neurotol, 2007; 28(4): 473–78.
13.
Woodson EA, Reiss LAJ, Turner CW et al: The hybrid cochlear implant: a review. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 125–34.
14.
Arnolder C, Helbig S, Wagenblast J et al: Electric acoustic stimulation in patients with postlingual severe high-frequency hearing loss: clinical experience. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 116–24.
15.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I: Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Otolaryngol, 2007; 127(1): 41–48.
16.
Gstöttner W, Pok SM, Peters S, Kiefer J, Adunka O: [Cochlear implantation with preservation of residual deep frequency hearing]. HNO, 2005; 53(9): 784–90.
17.
Wilson BS, Lawson DT, Muller JM et al: Cochlear implants: some likely next steps. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2003; 5: 207–49.
18.
Brill S, Lawson DT, Wolford RD et al: Speech processors for auditory prostheses: Eleventh Quarterly Progress Report on NIH Project N01-DC-8-2105, 2002.
19.
Gstoettner WK, van de Heyning P, O’Connor AF et al: Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation. Acta Otolaryngol, 2008; 128: 968–75.
20.
Gifford R, Dorman M, Brown C: Psychophysical properties of low- frequency hearing: Implications for electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 51–60.
21.
Ching TY, Inceri P, Hill M: Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear, 2004; 25: 9–21.
22.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ, McKarns SA: Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: Word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 2007; 50: 835–43.
23.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ et al: Hearing preservation surgery: psychophysical estimates of cochlear damage in recipients of a short electrode array. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 124: 2164–73.
24.
Wilson B, Wolford R, Lawson D, Schatzer R: Speech processors for auditory prostheses: third quarter progress report on NIH project N01-DC-2-1002, 2002.
25.
Dorman MF, Gifford RH, Lewis K et al: Word recognition following implantation of conventional and 10 mm Hybrid electrodes. Audiol Neurotol, 2009; 14: 181–89.
26.
Bacon SP, Opie JM, Montoya DY: The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1998; 41(3): 549–63.
27.
Bacon SP, Takahashi GA: Overshoot in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992; 91(5): 2865–71.
28.
Festen JM, Plomp R: Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 1990; 88(4): 1725–36.
29.
Nelson PB, Jin S-H, Carney AE, Nelson DA: Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2003; 113: 961–68.
30.
Nelson DA, Donaldson GS: Psychophysical recovery from single-pulse forward masking in electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 109(6): 2921–33.
31.
Shannon RV: Forward masking in patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 1990; 88: 741–44.
32.
Nelson PB, Jin S-H: Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 115: 2286–94.
33.
Fu QJ, Nogaki G: Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2005; 6: 19–27.
34.
Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C et al: Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 115: 1729–35.
35.
Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Reiss L: Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing. J Rehab Res Dev, 2008; 45: 769–78.
36.
Van Tasell DJ, Yanz JL: Speech recognition threshold in noise: effects of hearing loss, frequency response, and speech materials. J Speech Hear Res, 1987; 30(3): 377–86.
37.
Nilsson M, Soli S, Sullivan J: Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95: 1085–99.
38.
Levitt H: Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 1971; 49: 467–77.
39.
Laroche C, Hetu R, Quoc HT et al: Frequency selectivity in workers with noise-induced hearing loss. Hear Res, 1992; 64(1): 61–72.
40.
Leek MR, Summers V: Auditory filter shapes of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners in continuous broadband noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1993; 94: 3127–37.
41.
Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, MilroyR: The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 1982; 72(6): 1788–803.
42.
Stone MA, Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ: Simplified measurement of auditory filter shapes using the notched-noise method. Br J Audiol, 1992; 26(6): 329–34.
43.
Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ: Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data, Hear Res, 1990; 47: 103–38.
44.
Schroeder MR: Synthesis of low peak-factor signal and binary sequences with low autocorrelation. IEEE Transcations on Information Theory, 1971; 16: 85–89.
45.
Oxenham AO, Dau T: Reconciling frequency selectivity and phase effects in masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 110: 1525–38.
46.
Oxenham AO, Dau T: Masker phase effects in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: evidence for peripheral compression at low signal frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 116: 2248–57.
47.
Dorman MF, Gifford RH: Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Intl J Audiol, 2010; 49: 912–19.
48.
Dunn CC, Perreau A, Grantz BJ, Tyler RS: Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol, 2010; 21: 44–51.
49.
Hirsh IJ: The relation between localization and intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 1950; 22: 196–200.
50.
Licklider JCR: The influence of interaural phase relations upon the masking of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1948; 20: 150–59.
51.
Van Hoesel RJ, Clark GM: Fusion and lateralization study with two binaural cochlear implant patients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology Supplement, 1995; 166: 233–35.
52.
Van Hoesel RJ, Clark GM: Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 102: 495–507.
53.
Van Hoesel RJ, Tong YC, Hollow RD, Clark GM: Psychophysical and speech perception studies: A case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject. J Acoust Soc Am, 1993; 94: 3178–89.
54.
Van Hoesel RJ, Ramsden R, Odriscoll M: Sound-direction indernification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user. Ear Hear, 2002; 23: 137–49.
55.
Tyler RS, Parkinson AJ, Wilson BS et al: Patients utilzing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization. Ear Hear, 2002; 23: 98–105.
56.
Seeber BU, Baumann U, Fastl H: Localization ability with bimodal hearing aid and bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 116: 1698–709.
58.
Mills AW: Auditory localization. In: Foundations of Modern Auditory Theory. Tobias JV (ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1972; vol. 11: 303–48.
59.
Grantham DW, Ashmead DH, Ricketts TA et al: HorizontalPlane Localization of Noise and Speech Signals by Postlingually Deafened Adults Fitted With Bilateral Cochlear Implants. Ear Hear, 2007; 28: 524–41.
60.
Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Witt SA: Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2005; 48(3): 668–80.
61.
Balkany TJ, Connell SS, Hodges AV et al: Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol, 2006; 27: 1083–88.
62.
James C, Albegger K, Battmer R et al: Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: How and why. Acta Otolaryngol, 2005; 125: 481–91.
63.
Fraysse B, Ramos A, Sterkers MO et al: Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol, 2006; 27: 624–33.
64.
Gstoettner WK, Helbig S, Maier N et al: Ipsilateral electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of longterm hearing preservation. Audiol Neurootol, 2006; 11: 49–56.
65.
Compton-Conley CL, Neuman AC, Killion MC, Levitt H: Performance of directional microphones for hearing aids: realworld versus simulation. J Am Acad Audiol, 2004; 15: 440–55.
66.
Plomp R, Mimpen MA: Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 1979; 18: 43–52.
67.
Brown CB, Bacon SP: Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing, J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 125: 1658–65.
68.
Brown CB, Bacon SP: Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone. Ear Hear, 2009; 30: 489–93.
69.
Zhang T, Dorman M. Spahr A: Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation. Ear and Hearing, 2010; 31(1): 63–69.
70.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I: Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord, 1962; 27: 62–70.
71.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM et al: Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear, 2012; 33(1): 112–17.
72.
Chang J, Bai, J, Zeng F.-G: Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise. IEEE Trans Bio-Med Engineer, 2006; 53: 2598–601.
73.
Qin M, Oxenham AJ: Effects of introducing unprocessed lowfrequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006; 119: 2417–26.
74.
Kong YY, Carlyon RP: Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 2007; 121: 3717–27.
75.
Spitzer S, Liss J, Spahr R et al: The use of fundamental frequency for lexical segmentation in listeners with cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2009; 125(6): EL 235.
76.
Li N, Loizou P: Factors affecting masking release in cochlear-implant vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 126(1): 338–46.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
