Binaural unmasking with bilateral cochlear implants

JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 352-360

  Long, Christopher J ^a   Carlyon, Robert P ^a   Litovsky, Ruth Y ^b   Downs, Daniel H ^a  

^a MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Binaural hearing; Cochlear implants; Masking level difference; Signal detection

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BINAURAL HEARING; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; HEARING; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33751016016     PISSN: 15253961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10162-006-0049-4     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. AKEROYD MA, SUMMERFIELD AQ. Integration of monaural and binaural evidence of vowel formants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:3394-3406, 2000.
2. BERNSTEIN LR, TRAHIOTIS C. Enhancing sensitivity to interaural delays at high frequencies by using "transposed stimuli." J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112:1026-1036, 2002.
3. BRONKHORST A, PLOMP R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83:1508-1517, 1998.
4. CARLYON RP, DEEKS JM. Limitations on rate discrimination. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112:1009-1025, 2002.
5. COCHLEAR LIMITED. Nucleus Technical Reference (Manual Z43470 Issue I), 1999.
6. CULLING JF, COLBURN HS. Binaural sluggishness in the perception of tone sequences and speech in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107: 517-527, 2000.
7. DURLACH N, COLBURN H. Binaural phenomena. In: Carterette E and Friedman M (eds.) Handbook of Perception, Volume IV: Hearing. New York, Academic Press, pp. 365-466, 1978.
8. EDDINGTON D, POON B, NOEL V. Changes in fusion and localization performance when transitioning from monolateral to bilateral listening, Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses; Pacific Grove, California, 2005.
9. FLORENTINE M. Relation between lateralization and loudness in asymmetrical hearing losses. J. Am. Audiol. Soc. 1:243-251, 1976.
10. GRIFFIN SJ, BERNSTEIN LR, INGHAM NJ, MCALPINE D. Neural sensitivity to interaural envelope delays in the inferior colliculus of the guinea pig. J. Neurophysiol. 93:3463-3478, 2005.
11. HIRSH IJ. The influence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 20:536-544, 1948.
12. HOFMAN PM, VAN RISWICK JG, VAN OPSTAL AJ. Relearning sound localization with new ears. Nat. Neurosci. 1:417-421, 1998.
13. HOGAN SC, MEYER SE, MOORE DR. Binaural unmasking returns to normal in teenagers who had otitis media in infancy. Audiol. Neurootol. 1:104-111, 1996.
14. LITOVSKY RY, PARKINSON A, ARCAROLI J, PETERS R, LAKE J, JOHNSTONE P, YU G. Bilateral cochlear implants in adults and children. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 130:648-655, 2004.
15. LONG CJ, EDDINGTON DK, COLBURN HS, RABINOWITZ WM. Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:1565-1574, 2003.
16. MCDERMOTT HJ, MCKAY CM, VANDALI AE. A new portable sound processor for the University-of-Melbourne nucleus limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91:3367-3371, 1992.
17. NUETZEL J, HAFTER E. Discrimination of interaural delays in complex waveforms: spectral effects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69:1112-1118, 1981.
18. PALMER AR, SHACKLETON TM. The physiological basis of the binaural masking level difference. Acta Acustica 88:312-319, 2002.
19. ROBINSON K, GATEHOUSE S. Changes in intensity discrimination following monaural long-term use of a hearing aid. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97:1183-1190, 1995.
20. ROSEN S. Temporal Information in speech: acoustic, auditory, and linguistic aspects. In: Carlyon R, Darwin C and Russell I (eds.) Processing of Complex Sounds by the Auditory System. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 73-79, 1992.
21. SCHLEICH P, NOPP P, D'HAESE P. Head shadow, squelch, and summation effects in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant. Ear Hear 25:197-204, 2004.
22. SHACKLETON TM, ARNOTT RH, PALMER AR. Sensitivity to interaural correlation of single neurons in the inferior colliculus of guinea pigs. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 1-16, 2005.
23. SMITH ZM, DELGUTTE B, OXENHAM AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 416:87-90, 2002.
24. VAN DER PAR Z, KOHLRAUSCH A. A new approach to comparing binaural masking level differences at low and high frequencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101:1671-1680, 1997.
25. VAN HOESEL R. Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants. Audiol. Neurootol. 9:234-246, 2004.
26. VAN HOESEL R, TYLER R. Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:1617-1630, 2003.
27. VOLLMER M, LEAKE PA, BEITEL RE, REBSCHER SJ, SNYDER RL. Degradation of temporal resolution in the auditory midbrain after prolonged deafness is reversed by electrical stimulation of the cochlea. J. Neurophysiol. 93:3339-3355, 2005.
28. WILSON BS, FINLEY CC, LAWSON DT, WOLFORD RD, EDDINGTON DK, RABINOWITZ WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 352:236-238, 1991.
29. ZUREK PM. Binaural advantages and directional effects in speech intelligibility. In: Hockberg I (ed.) Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, Boston, Allyn and Bacon, pp. 255-276, 1993.