Sound Localization in Single-Sided Deaf Participants Provided With a Cochlear Implant.
cochlear implant
interaural level difference
interaural time difference
single-sided deafness
sound localization
speech-in-noise
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
04
08
2021
accepted:
28
09
2021
entrez:
8
11
2021
pubmed:
9
11
2021
medline:
9
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Spatial hearing is crucial in real life but deteriorates in participants with severe sensorineural hearing loss or single-sided deafness. This ability can potentially be improved with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). The present study investigated measures of sound localization in participants with single-sided deafness provided with a CI. Sound localization was measured separately at eight loudspeaker positions (4°, 30°, 60°, and 90°) on the CI side and on the normal-hearing side. Low- and high-frequency noise bursts were used in the tests to investigate possible differences in the processing of interaural time and level differences. Data were compared to normal-hearing adults aged between 20 and 83. In addition, the benefit of the CI in speech understanding in noise was compared to the localization ability. Fifteen out of 18 participants were able to localize signals on the CI side and on the normal-hearing side, although performance was highly variable across participants. Three participants always pointed to the normal-hearing side, irrespective of the location of the signal. The comparison with control data showed that participants had particular difficulties localizing sounds at frontal locations and on the CI side. In contrast to most previous results, participants were able to localize low-frequency signals, although they localized high-frequency signals more accurately. Speech understanding in noise was better with the CI compared to testing without CI, but only at a position where the CI also improved sound localization. Our data suggest that a CI can, to a large extent, restore localization in participants with single-sided deafness. Difficulties may remain at frontal locations and on the CI side. However, speech understanding in noise improves when wearing the CI. The treatment with a CI in these participants might provide real-world benefits, such as improved orientation in traffic and speech understanding in difficult listening situations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34744930
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753339
pmc: PMC8566543
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
753339Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Ludwig, Meuret, Battmer, Schönwiesner, Fuchs and Ernst.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Audiol. 2005 Mar;44(3):144-56
pubmed: 15916115
J Acoust Soc Am. 1971 Feb;49(2):Suppl 2:467+
pubmed: 5541744
Hear Res. 1999 Feb;128(1-2):175-89
pubmed: 10082297
Ear Hear. 2008 Jun;29(3):352-9
pubmed: 18453885
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Apr;50(5):892-903
pubmed: 22321955
Hear Res. 2019 Jun;377:282-291
pubmed: 31029039
Ear Hear. 2017 Sep/Oct;38(5):611-619
pubmed: 28375876
Ear Hear. 2019 Nov/Dec;40(6):1293-1306
pubmed: 30870240
Clin Otolaryngol. 2016 Oct;41(5):511-8
pubmed: 26441318
Acta Otolaryngol. 1962 Nov-Dec;55:405-24
pubmed: 13938897
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006 Dec;7(4):352-60
pubmed: 16941078
Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec;22:2331216518813802
pubmed: 30509148
J Neurophysiol. 1995 Mar;73(3):1043-62
pubmed: 7608754
J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Apr;133(4):2314-28
pubmed: 23556598
Otol Neurotol. 2011 Jan;32(1):39-47
pubmed: 21068690
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Feb;103(2):1085-97
pubmed: 9479763
Am J Otol. 1997 Nov;18(6 Suppl):S83
pubmed: 9391610
J Acoust Soc Am. 2014 Feb;135(2):808-16
pubmed: 25234889
Front Syst Neurosci. 2013 Dec 27;7:123
pubmed: 24409125
J Acoust Soc Am. 1992 Mar;91(3):1648-61
pubmed: 1564201
Trends Hear. 2015 Dec 30;19:
pubmed: 26721926
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Oct;33(8):1339-46
pubmed: 22935813
Ear Hear. 2014 Nov-Dec;35(6):633-40
pubmed: 25127322
Cell Tissue Res. 2015 Jul;361(1):371-86
pubmed: 26077928
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Feb;123(2):1030-42
pubmed: 18247905
Acta Otolaryngol. 1962 Jan;54:75-93
pubmed: 14480310
J Acoust Soc Am. 1992 Mar;91(3):1637-47
pubmed: 1564200
Nature. 2002 Mar 7;416(6876):87-90
pubmed: 11882898
J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Mar;113(3):1617-30
pubmed: 12656396
Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec;22:2331216518771173
pubmed: 29732951
Ear Hear. 2007 Aug;28(4):524-41
pubmed: 17609614
Exp Brain Res. 2014 Apr;232(4):1157-72
pubmed: 24449009
Hear Res. 1994 May;75(1-2):38-46
pubmed: 8071153
Clin Otolaryngol. 2006 Feb;31(1):6-14
pubmed: 16441794
Otol Neurotol. 2014 Oct;35(9):1525-32
pubmed: 25158615
Audiol Neurootol. 2017;22(4-5):259-271
pubmed: 29298446
Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(1):48-62
pubmed: 23095333
J Acoust Soc Am. 2019 May;145(5):2982
pubmed: 31153315
Ear Hear. 2004 Feb;25(1):9-21
pubmed: 14770014
Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20(3):183-8
pubmed: 25896774
J Acoust Soc Am. 1976 Mar;59(3):634-9
pubmed: 1254790
Ear Hear. 2017 Jan/Feb;38(1):117-125
pubmed: 27513880
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 14;15(1):e0227371
pubmed: 31935234
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2009 Dec;10(4):557-67
pubmed: 19513792
Trends Hear. 2014 Oct 13;18:
pubmed: 25315376
Audiol Neurootol. 2017;22(6):326-342
pubmed: 29495018
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Jul;37(6):658-64
pubmed: 27153328
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Sep;116(3):1698-709
pubmed: 15478437
Hear Res. 2019 Feb;372:69-79
pubmed: 29729903
Ear Hear. 2017 Mar/Apr;38(2):159-173
pubmed: 28067750
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Mar;127(3):EL87-92
pubmed: 20329812
Ear Hear. 2015 May-Jun;36(3):e93-8
pubmed: 25474416