Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two Ears Are Not Always Better than One: Mandatory Vowel Fusion Across Spectrally Mismatched Ears in Hearing-Impaired Listeners

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hearing loss and auditory prostheses can alter auditory processing by inducing large pitch mismatches and broad pitch fusion between the two ears. Similar to integration of incongruent inputs in other sensory modalities, the mismatched, fused pitches are often averaged across ears for simple stimuli. Here, we measured parallel effects on complex stimulus integration using a new technique based on vowel classification in five bilateral hearing aid users and eight bimodal cochlear implant users. Continua between five pairs of synthetic vowels were created by varying the first formant spectral peak while keeping the second formant constant. Comparison of binaural and monaural vowel classification functions for each vowel pair continuum enabled visualization of the following frequency-dependent integration trends: (1) similar monaural and binaural functions, (2) ear dominance, (3) binaural averaging, and (4) binaural interference. Hearing aid users showed all trends, while bimodal cochlear implant users showed mostly ear dominance or interference. Interaural pitch mismatches, frequency ranges of binaural pitch fusion, and the relative weightings of pitch averaging across ears were also measured using tone and/or electrode stimulation. The presence of both large interaural pitch mismatches and broad pitch fusion was not sufficient to predict vowel integration trends such as binaural averaging or interference. The way that pitch averaging was weighted between ears also appears to be important for determining binaural vowel integration trends. Abnormally broad spectral fusion and the associated phoneme fusion across mismatched ears may underlie binaural speech perception interference observed in hearing aid and cochlear implant users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1
FIG. 2
FIG. 3
FIG. 4
FIG. 5
FIG. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albers GD, Wilson WH (1968) Diplacusis. I. Historical review. Arch Otolaryngol 87(6):601–603

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anstis S, Rogers B (2012) Binocular fusion of luminance, color, motion, and flicker—two eyes are worse than one. Vis Res 53:47–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binda P, Bruno A, Burr DC, Morrone M (2007) Fusion of visual and auditory stimuli during saccades: a Bayesian explanation for perisaccadic distortions. J Neurosci 27(32):8525–8532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey PJ, Maat B, Baskent D, Mawman D, Burke E, Dillier N, Beynon A, Klein-Punte A, Govaerts P, Skarzynski PH, Huber AM, Sterkers-Artieres F, Van de Heynin P, O’Leary S, Fraysse B, Green K, Sterkers O, Venail F, Skarzynski H, Vincent C, Truy E, Dowell R, Bergeron F, Lazard D (2015) A retrospective multicenter study comparing speech perception outcomes for bilateral implantation and bimodal rehabilitation. Ear Hear 36:408–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter AS, Noe CM, Wilson RH (2001) Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 12:261–272

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung SM, Bonham BH, Schreiner CE, Godey B, Copenhaver DA (2009) Realignment of interaural cortical maps in asymmetric hearing loss. J Neurosci 29(21):7065–7078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ching TY, van Wanrooy E, Dillong H (2007) Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review. Trends Amplif 11(3):161–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cox RM, Schwartz KS, Noe CM, Alexander GC (2011) Preference for one or two hearing aids among adult patients. Ear Hear 32(2):181–197

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cutting JE (1976) Auditory and linguistic process in speech perception: inferences from six fusions in dichotic listening. Psychol Rev 83:114–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dorman MF, Gifford RH (2010) Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 49(12):912–919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eggermont JJ (2008) The role of sound in adult and developmental auditory cortical plasticity. Ear Hear 29:819–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick EM, Leblanc S (2010) Exploring the factors influencing discontinued hearing aid use in patients with unilateral cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 14(4):199–210

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, J.R., Eggleston, J.L., Reavis, K.M., McMillan, G.P., and Reiss, L.A.J. (2016) Effects of removing low-frequency electric information on speech perception with bimodal hearing. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res

  • Grose JH, Mamo SK (2010) Processing of temporal fine structure as a function of age. Ear Hear 31(6):755–760

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Guerit F, Santurette S, Chalupper J, Dau T (2014) Investigating interaural frequency-place mismatches via bimodal vowel integration. Trends Hear 18:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Halwes, T.G. (1970) Effects of dichotic fusion on the perception of speech (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, p. 1565B. (University Microfilms No. 70–15, 736)

  • Hillebrand, J., Getty, L.A., Clark, M.J., and Wheeler, K. (1995) Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97(5), Pt. 1, 3099–3111

  • Hillis JM, Ernst MO, Banks MS, Landy MS (2002) Combining sensory information: mandatory fusion within, but not between, senses. Science 298(5598):1627–1630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jerger J, Carhart R, Dirks D (1961) Binaural hearing aids and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res 4:137–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kong YY, Braida LD (2011) Cross-frequency integration for consonant and vowel identification in bimodal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 54(3):959–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kong YY, Stickney GS, Zeng FG (2005) Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 117:1351–1361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Litovsky RY, Johnstone PM, Godar S, Agrawal S, Parkinson A, Peters R, Lake J (2006) Bilateral cochlear implants in children: localization acuity measured with minimum audible angle. Ear Hear 27(1):43–59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle RA, Killion M, Mennite MA, Chisolm TH (2012) Are two ears not better than one? J Am Acad Audiol 23(3):171–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGurk H, MacDonald J (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264(5588):746–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odenthal DW (1963) Perception and neural representation of simultaneous dichotic pure tone stimuli. Acta Physiol Pharmacol Neerl 12:453–496

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson GE, Barney HE (1952) Control of methods used in a study of vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 24:175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popescu MV, Polley DB (2010) Monaural deprivation disrupts development of binaural selectivity in auditory midbrain and cortex. Neuron 65(5):718–731

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, L. A., Shayman, C. S., Walker, E.P., Bennett, K. O., Fowler, J. R., Hartling C. L., and Oh, Y. (submitted). Binaural pitch fusion is broader in hearing-impaired than normal-hearing listeners. Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am

  • Reiss LAJ, Turner CW, Erenberg SR, Gantz BJ (2007) Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8(2):241–257

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss LAJ, Gantz BJ, Turner CW (2008) Cochlear implant speech processor frequency allocations may influence pitch perception. Otol Neurootol 29(2):160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss LA, Lowder ML, Karsten SA, Turner CW, Gantz BJ (2011) Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: a case study. Ear Hear 32(4):536–40

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss LA, Perreau AE, Turner CW (2012) Effects of lower frequency-to-electrode allocations on speech and pitch perception with the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant. Audiol Neurotol 17(6):357–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss LAJ, Ito RA, Eggleston JL, Liao S, Becker JJ, Lakin CE, Warren FM, McMenomey SO (2014a) Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over-time and after experience. Ear Hear 36(2):e23–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss LAJ, Ito RA, Eggleston JL, Wozny DR (2014b) Abnormal binaural spectral integration in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15(2):235–248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, L., Shayman, C., Walker, E., O’Connell Bennett, K., and Fowler, J. (2015) Binaural Pitch Fusion is Broader in Hearing-Impaired Listeners than Normal-Hearing Listeners.  38thMidwinter Research Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, February 2015, Baltimore, MD

  • Sagi E, Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd, Svirsky MA (2010) A model of incomplete adaptation to a severely shifted frequency-to-electrode mapping by cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 11(1):69–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Souza PE, Boike KT, Witherall K, Tremblay K (2007) Prediction of speech recognition from audibility in older listeners with hearing loss: effects of age, amplification, and background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 18:54–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink G, Sintnicolaas K, van Stam WS (1976) Dichotic pitch fusion. J Acoust Soc Am 59(6):1471–1476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walden TC, Walden BE (2005) Unilateral versus bilateral amplification for adults with impaired hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 16(8):574–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Percept Psychophys 63(8):1314–1329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The laboratory cochlear implant Freedom processor was provided by Cochlear, and the laboratory hearing aid was provided by Oticon. This research was supported by grants R01 DC013307, P30 DC010755, and P30 DC005983 from the National Institutes of Deafness and Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oregon Hearing Research Center, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Lina A. J. Reiss, Jessica L. Eggleston, Emily P. Walker & Yonghee Oh

Authors
  1. Lina A. J. Reiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica L. Eggleston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily P. Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yonghee Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lina A. J. Reiss.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Figures S1–S4

Each figure shows vowel confusion matrices for CI20, CI25, CI30, and CI33. In each figure, the CI-only, bimodal CI (CI+HA), and HA-only results are shown in the top, middle, and bottom panels, respectively. Each row represents one vowel and each column represents one possible vowel response by the subject. The shading and number for each cell indicate how often the subject chose a particular vowel (column) in response to presentation of a particular stimulus (row). Responses on the diagonal indicate correct responses, and responses off the diagonal indicate confusions. (GIF 317 kb)

(GIF 299 kb)

(GIF 309 kb)

(GIF 305 kb)

High resolution image (EPS 69 kb)

High resolution image (EPS 69 kb)

High resolution image (EPS 69 kb)

High resolution image (EPS 69 kb)

Supplementary Figure S5

Additional example synthetic vowel classification functions for two subjects. CI33 (A) and CI56 (B). Plotted as in Fig. 2. (GIF 115 kb)

High resolution image (EPS 11 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reiss, L.A.J., Eggleston, J.L., Walker, E.P. et al. Two Ears Are Not Always Better than One: Mandatory Vowel Fusion Across Spectrally Mismatched Ears in Hearing-Impaired Listeners. JARO 17, 341–356 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0570-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0570-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation