Speech Recognition With Informational and Energetic Maskers in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness After Cochlear Implantation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Verena Müller ◽  
Ruth Lang-Roth
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Informational Masking ◽  
Slight Improvement ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Competing Speech

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess the susceptibility to energetic and informational masking in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) with one normal-hearing (NH) ear and a cochlear implant (CI) in the contralateral ear, understand the effect on speech recognition when spatially separating noise and speech maskers, and investigate the influence of the CI in situations with energetic and informational masking. Method Speech recognition was measured in the presence of either a modulated speech-shaped noise or one of two competing speech maskers in 11 SSD-CI listeners. The speech maskers were manipulated with respect to fundamental frequency to consider the effect of different voices. Measurements were conducted in the unaided (NH) and aided (NHCI) conditions. Spatial release from masking (SRM) was calculated for each masker type and both listening conditions (NH and NHCI) by subtracting scores of the colocated target and masker condition (S 0 N 0 ) from the spatially separated target and masker conditions (S 0 N ≠0 ). Results Speech recognition was highly variable depending on the type of masker. SRM occurred in the unaided (NH) and aided (NHCI) conditions when the speech masker had the same gender as the target talker. Adding the CI improved speech recognition when this speech masker was ipsilateral to the NH ear. Conclusions The amount of informational masking is substantial in SSD-CI listeners with both colocated and spatially separated target and masker signals. The contribution of SRM to better speech recognition largely depends on the masker and is considerable when no differences in voices between the target and the competing talker occur. There is only a slight improvement in speech recognition by adding the CI.

Spatial Release From Masking in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients With Single-Sided Deafness

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Lisa R. Park ◽  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Brendan P. O'Connell ◽  
Kevin D. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Purpose Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) experience difficulty understanding speech in multisource listening situations. Case reports and retrospective studies have indicated that a cochlear implant (CI) may improve masked speech recognition in children with SSD. This prospective study was conducted to determine whether providing a CI to children with SSD supports spatial release from masking (SRM), an improvement in speech recognition associated with separating the target and masker sources. Method Twenty children with at least a moderate-to-profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear underwent cochlear implantation. The average age of implantation was 5.5 years (range: 3.5–12.7). After 12 months of CI use, subjects completed a sentence recognition task in multitalker masker with and without the CI. The target was presented from the front, and the masker was either colocated with the target (0°) or from the side (+90° or −90°). A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was completed to investigate SRM with and without the CI. Results Pediatric CI recipients experienced significant SRM when the masker was directed to the normal-hearing ear or to the affected ear. Conclusions The results indicate that cochlear implantation in children with SSD supports binaural skills required for speech recognition in noise. These results are consistent with improved functional communication in multisource environments, like classrooms.

scholarly journals The impact of cochlear implant microphone settings on the binaural hearing of experienced cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Kurz ◽  
Maren Zanzinger ◽  
Rudolf Hagen ◽  
Kristen Rak
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Shadow Effect ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective Cochlear implantation has become a well-accepted treatment option for people with single-sided deafness (SSD) and has become a clinical standard in many countries. A cochlear implant (CI) is the only device which restores binaural hearing. The effect of microphone directionality (MD) settings has been investigated in other CI indication groups, but its impact on speech perception in noise has not been established in CI users with SSD. The focus of this investigation was, therefore, to assess binaural hearing effects using different MD settings in CI users with SSD. Methods Twenty-nine experienced CI users with SSD were recruited to determine speech reception thresholds with varying target and noise sources to define binaural effects (head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking), sound localization, and sound quality using the SSQ12 and HISQUI19 questionnaires. Outcome measures included the MD settings “natural”, “adaptive”, and “omnidirectional”. Results The 29 participants involved in the study were divided into two groups: 11 SONNET users and 18 OPUS 2/RONDO users. In both groups, a significant head shadow effect of 7.4–9.2 dB was achieved with the CI. The MD setting “adaptive” provided a significant head shadow effect of 9.2 dB, a squelch effect of 0.9 dB, and spatial release from masking of 7.6 dB in the SONNET group. No significant summation effect could be determined in either group with CI. Outcomes with the omnidirectional setting were not significantly different between groups. For both groups, localization improved significantly when the CI was activated and was best when the omnidirectional setting was used. The groups’ sound quality scores did not significantly differ. Conclusions Adaptive directional microphone settings improve speech perception and binaural hearing abilities in CI users with SSD. Binaural effect measures are valuable to quantify the benefit of CI use, especially in this indication group.

scholarly journals Spatial Release From Informational and Energetic Masking in Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 3816-3833
Author(s):  
Kristen D'Onofrio ◽  
Virginia Richards ◽  
René Gifford
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Correlated Noise ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Informational Masking ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Spatial Configurations ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant ◽  
Release From Masking

Purpose Spatially separating speech and background noise improves speech understanding in normal-hearing listeners, an effect referred to as spatial release from masking (SRM). In cochlear implant (CI) users, SRM has often been demonstrated using asymmetric noise configurations, which maximize benefit from head shadow and the potential availability of binaural cues. In contrast, SRM in symmetrical configurations has been minimal to absent in CI users. We examined the interaction between two types of maskers (informational and energetic) and SRM in bimodal and bilateral CI users. We hypothesized that SRM would be absent or “negative” using symmetrically separated noise maskers. Second, we hypothesized that bimodal listeners would exhibit greater release from informational masking due to access to acoustic information in the non-CI ear. Method Participants included 10 bimodal and 10 bilateral CI users. Speech understanding in noise was tested in 24 conditions: 3 spatial configurations (S 0 N 0 , S 0 N 45&315 , S 0 N 90&270 ) × 2 masker types (speech, signal-correlated noise) × 2 listening configurations (best-aided, CI-alone) × 2 talker gender conditions (different-gender, same-gender). Results In support of our first hypothesis, both groups exhibited negative SRM with increasing spatial separation. In opposition to our second hypothesis, both groups exhibited similar magnitudes of release from informational masking. The magnitude of release was greater for bimodal listeners, though this difference failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions Both bimodal and bilateral CI recipients exhibited negative SRM. This finding is consistent with CI signal processing limitations, the audiologic factors associated with SRM, and known effects of behind-the-ear microphone technology. Though release from informational masking was not significantly different across groups, the magnitude of release was greater for bimodal listeners. This suggests that bimodal listeners may be at least marginally more susceptible to informational masking than bilateral CI users, though further research is warranted.

Cochlear implantation in Thailand

1999 ◽  
Vol 113 (6) ◽  
pp. 515-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanate Vaewvichit ◽  
Parinya Luangpitakchumpol
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Operative Results ◽  
Speech Rehabilitation ◽  
Lip Reading ◽  
Deaf Adults ◽  
Contralateral Ear

AbstractThis article evaluates and compares the benefits of a House/3M single channel cochlear implant or a Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant on speech recognition in Thai-speaking patients. From 1986–1989, four profoundly deaf adults were implanted with the House/3M prosthesis. Since 1994, nine post-lingually deaf adults and three pre-lingually deaf children have been implanted with the Nucleus prosthesis. One case was implanted with the House/3M prosthesis and in the contralateral ear with the Nucleus prosthesis. The post-operative results were determined according to the ability to understand Thai monosyllabic, bisyllabic open-word sets and everyday sentence tests with, and without, lip reading. The scores were then compared in the House/3M users and the Nucleus users and compared between the House/3M cochlear implant and the Nucleus cochlear implant in the same user. The speech recognition scores on monosyllabic and bisyllabic open-word set demonstrated that the Nucleus users perform at a much higher level than the House/3M users. The results of four pre-lingually deaf children will be reported later after a period of auditory and speech rehabilitation.

scholarly journals Spatial Release from Masking Using Clinical Corpora: Sentence Recognition in a Colocated or Spatially Separated Speech Masker

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (04) ◽  
pp. 271-276
Author(s):  
Grant King ◽  
Nicole E. Corbin ◽  
Lori J. Leibold ◽  
Emily Buss
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Perceived Spatial Separation ◽  
Separation Conditions

Abstract Background Speech recognition in complex multisource environments is challenging, particularly for listeners with hearing loss. One source of difficulty is the reduced ability of listeners with hearing loss to benefit from spatial separation of the target and masker, an effect called spatial release from masking (SRM). Despite the prevalence of complex multisource environments in everyday life, SRM is not routinely evaluated in the audiology clinic. Purpose The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of assessing SRM in adults using widely available tests of speech-in-speech recognition that can be conducted using standard clinical equipment. Research Design Participants were 22 young adults with normal hearing. The task was masked sentence recognition, using each of five clinically available corpora with speech maskers. The target always sounded like it originated from directly in front of the listener, and the masker either sounded like it originated from the front (colocated with the target) or from the side (separated from the target). In the real spatial manipulation conditions, source location was manipulated by routing the target and masker to either a single speaker or to two speakers: one directly in front of the participant, and one mounted in an adjacent corner, 90° to the right. In the perceived spatial separation conditions, the target and masker were presented from both speakers with delays that made them sound as if they were either colocated or separated. Results With real spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 7.1 to 11.4 dB, depending on the speech corpus. With perceived spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 1.8 to 3.1 dB. Whereas real separation improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the ear contralateral to the masker, SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions is based solely on interaural timing cues. Conclusions The finding of robust SRM with widely available speech corpora supports the feasibility of measuring this important aspect of hearing in the audiology clinic. The finding of a small but significant SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions suggests that modified materials could be used to evaluate the use of interaural timing cues specifically.

scholarly journals Tinnitus impairs segregation of competing speech in normal-hearing listeners

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Wenyi Liu ◽  
Bing Wang ◽  
Bing Chen ◽  
John J. Galvin ◽  
Qian-Jie Fu
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Informational Masking ◽  
Spatial Cues ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
Lexical Interference ◽  
Competing Speech

AbstractMany tinnitus patients report difficulties understanding speech in noise or competing talkers, despite having “normal” hearing in terms of audiometric thresholds. The interference caused by tinnitus is more likely central in origin. Release from informational masking (more central in origin) produced by competing speech may further illuminate central interference due to tinnitus. In the present study, masked speech understanding was measured in normal hearing listeners with or without tinnitus. Speech recognition thresholds were measured for target speech in the presence of multi-talker babble or competing speech. For competing speech, speech recognition thresholds were measured for different cue conditions (i.e., with and without target-masker sex differences and/or with and without spatial cues). The present data suggest that tinnitus negatively affected masked speech recognition even in individuals with no measurable hearing loss. Tinnitus severity appeared to especially limit listeners’ ability to segregate competing speech using talker sex differences. The data suggest that increased informational masking via lexical interference may tax tinnitus patients’ central auditory processing resources.

scholarly journals Aiding and Occluding the Contralateral Ear in Implanted Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (09) ◽  
pp. 567-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Runge ◽  
Jamie Jensen ◽  
David R. Friedland ◽  
Ruth Y. Litovsky ◽  
Sergey Tarima
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Predictive Variables ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Background: The challenges associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) are due primarily to temporal impairment and therefore tend to affect perception of low- to midfrequency sounds. A common treatment option for severe impairment in ANSD is cochlear implantation, and because the degree of impairment is unrelated to degree of hearing loss by audiometric thresholds, this population may have significant acoustic sensitivity in the contralateral ear. Clinically, the question arises as to how we should treat the contralateral ear in this population when there is acoustic hearing—should we plug it, amplify it, implant it, or leave it alone? Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of acute amplification and plugging of the contralateral ear compared to no intervention in implanted children with ANSD and aidable contralateral hearing. It was hypothesized that due to impaired temporal processing in ANSD, contralateral acoustic input would interfere with speech perception achieved with the cochlear implant (CI) alone; therefore, speech perception performance will decline with amplification and improve with occlusion. Research Design: Prospective within-subject comparison. Adaptive speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) for monosyllable and spondee word stimuli were measured in quiet and in noise for the intervention configurations. Study Sample: Nine children treated at the Medical College of Wisconsin Koss Cochlear Implant Program participated in the study. Inclusion criteria for this study were children diagnosed with ANSD who were unilaterally implanted, had aidable hearing in the contralateral ear (defined as a three-frequency pure-tone average of ≤80 dB HL), had at least 1 yr of cochlear implant experience, and were able to perform the speech perception task. Intervention: We compared SRT with the CI alone to SRTs with interventions of cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid (CI+HA) and cochlear implant with a contralateral earplug (CI+plug). Data Collection and Analysis: SRTs were measured and compared within subjects across listening conditions. Within-subject comparisons were analyzed using paired t-tests, and analyses of predictive variables for effects of contralateral intervention were analyzed using linear regression. Results: Contrary to the hypothesis, the bimodal CI+HA configuration showed a significant improvement in mean performance over the CI-alone configuration in quiet (p = .04). In noise, SRTs were obtained for six subjects, and no significant bimodal benefit was observed (p = .09). There were no consistent effects of occlusion observed across subjects and stimulus conditions. Degree of bimodal benefit showed a significant relationship with performance with the CI alone, with greater bimodal benefit associated with poorer CI-alone performance (p = .01). This finding, however, was limited by floor effects. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that children with ANSD who are experienced cochlear implant users may benefit from contralateral amplification, particularly for moderate cochlear implant performers. It is unclear from these data whether long-term contralateral hearing aid use in real-world situations would ultimately benefit this population; however, a hearing aid trial is recommended with assessment of bimodal benefit over time. These data may help inform clinical guidelines for determining optimal hearing configurations for unilaterally implanted children with ANSD, particularly when considering candidacy for sequential cochlear implantation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document