scholarly journals Changes in children's speech discrimination and spatial release from masking between 2 and 4 years after sequential cochlear implantation

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 270-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine F. Killan ◽  
Edward C. Killan ◽  
Christopher H. Raine
Author(s):  
Verena Müller ◽  
Ruth Lang-Roth

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 658-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilma Grossmann ◽  
Stefan Brill ◽  
Alexander Moeltner ◽  
Robert Mlynski ◽  
Rudolf Hagen ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Lisa R. Park ◽  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Brendan P. O'Connell ◽  
Kevin D. Brown

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.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick J. Gallun ◽  
Garnett P. McMillan ◽  
Sean D. Kampel ◽  
Kasey M. Jakien ◽  
Nirmal K. Srinivasan ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 233121651987237 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Moore ◽  
Helen Whiston ◽  
Melanie Lough ◽  
Antonia Marsden ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
...  

Pure-tone threshold audiometry is currently the standard test of hearing. However, in everyday life, we are more concerned with listening to speech of moderate loudness and, specifically, listening to a particular talker against a background of other talkers. FreeHear delivers strings of three spoken digits (0–9, not 7) against a background babble via three loudspeakers placed in front and to either side of a listener. FreeHear is designed as a rapid, quantitative initial assessment of hearing using an adaptive algorithm. It is designed especially for children and for testing listeners who are using hearing devices. In this first report on FreeHear, we present developmental considerations and protocols and results of testing 100 children (4–13 years old) and 23 adults (18–30 years old). Two of the six 4 year olds and 91% of all older children completed full testing. Speech reception threshold (SRT) for digits and noise colocated at 0° or separated by 90° both improved linearly across 4 to 12 years old by 6 to 7 dB, with a further 2 dB improvement for the adults. These data suggested full maturation at approximately 15 years old SRTs at 90° digits/noise separation were better by approximately 6 dB than SRTs colocated at 0°. This spatial release from masking did not change significantly across age. Test–retest reliability was similar for children and adults (standard deviation of 2.05–2.91 dB SRT), with a mean practice improvement of 0.04–0.98 dB. FreeHear shows promise as a clinical test for both children and adults. Further trials in people with hearing impairment are ongoing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (04) ◽  
pp. 271-276
Author(s):  
Grant King ◽  
Nicole E. Corbin ◽  
Lori J. Leibold ◽  
Emily Buss

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 147 (3) ◽  
pp. 1719-1726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir V. Popov ◽  
Alexander Ya. Supin ◽  
Alisa P. Gvozdeva ◽  
Dmitry I. Nechaev ◽  
Mikhail B. Tarakanov ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document