Advertisement

Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users

  • Matthew J. Goupell
  • Stefano Cosentino
  • Olga A. Stakhovskaya
  • Joshua G. W. Bernstein
Research Article

Abstract

By allowing bilateral access to sound, bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or unilateral CIs for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD; i.e., normal or near-normal hearing in one ear) can improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Spatial hearing in the horizontal plane is primarily conveyed by interaural time and level differences computed from neurons in the superior olivary complex that receive frequency-matched inputs. Because BI-CIs and SSD-CIs do not necessarily convey frequency-matched information, it is critical to understand how to align the inputs to CI users. Previous studies show that interaural pitch discrimination for SSD-CI listeners is highly susceptible to contextual biases, questioning its utility for establishing interaural frequency alignment. Here, we replicate this finding for SSD-CI listeners and show that these biases also extend to BI-CI listeners. To assess the testing-range bias, three ranges of comparison electrodes (BI-CI) or pure-tone frequencies (SSD-CI) were tested: full range, apical/lower half, or basal/upper half. To assess the reference bias, the reference electrode was either held fixed throughout a testing block or randomly chosen from three electrodes (basal end, middle, or apical end of the array). Results showed no effect of reference electrode randomization, but a large testing range bias; changing the center of the testing-rage shifted the pitch match by an average 63 % (BI-CI) or 43 % (SSD-CI) of the change magnitude. This bias diminished pitch-match accuracy, with a change in reference electrode shifting the pitch match only an average 34 % (BI-CI) or 40 % (SSD-CI) of the expected amount. Because these effects extended to the relatively more symmetric BI-CI listeners, the results suggest that the bias cannot be attributed to interaural asymmetry. Unless the range effect can be minimized or accounted for, a pitch-discrimination task will produce interaural place-of-stimulation estimates that are highly influenced by the conditions tested, rather than reflecting a true interaural place-pitch comparison.

Keywords

cochlear implant pitch binaural hearing interaural mismatch 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Cochlear Ltd. and Med-El for providing the testing equipment and technical support. We thank Danielle King, Emily Waddington, and Tori Levi who helped collect data for this study. We thank the Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences at University of Maryland, College Park (Dr. Nicole Nguyen), the Cochlear Implant Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center (Dr. Regina Presley), the University of Maryland Medical School (Dr. David Eisenman and Dr. Ronna Hertzano), and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (Dr. Gerald Schuchman) for their assistance with recruiting listeners. We thank Ginny Alexander for the managerial help and Kenneth Jensen for helpful comments on a previous version of this paper. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government. The identification of specific products or scientific instrumentation does not constitute endorsement or implied endorsement on the part of the author, DoD, or any component agency.

Funding

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Deafness And Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01 DC015798 (M.J.G. and J.G.W.B.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Adunka OF, Pillsbury HC, Kiefer J (2006) Combining perimodiolar electrode placement and atraumatic insertion properties in cochlear implantation—fact or fantasy? Acta Otolaryngol 126:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronoff JM, Padilla M, Stelmach J, Landsberger DM (2016) Clinically paired electrodes are often not perceived as pitch matched. Trends Hear 20:2331216516668302Google Scholar
  3. Baumann U, Nobbe A (2004) Pitch ranking with deeply inserted electrode arrays. Ear Hear 25:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein JGW, Stakhovskaya OA, Schuchman GI, Jensen KK, Goupell MJ (2018) Interaural-time-difference discrimination as a measure of place of stimulation for cochlear-implant users with single-sided deafness. Trends Hear 22:2331216518765514Google Scholar
  5. Bierer JA, Nye AD (2014) Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels. Ear Hear 35:641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanks DA, Roberts JM, Buss E, Hall JW, Fitzpatrick DC (2007) Neural and behavioral sensitivity to interaural time differences using amplitude modulated tones with mismatched carrier frequencies. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlyon RP, Macherey O, Frijns JH, Axon PR, Kalkman RK, Boyle P, Baguley DM, Briggs J, Deeks JM, Briaire JJ, Barreau X, Dauman R (2010) Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 11:625–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr CE, Konishi M (1990) A circuit for detection of interaural time differences in the brain stem of the barn owl. J Neurosci 10:3227–3246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatterjee M, Yu J (2010) A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 127:415–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J (2008) Sensitivity to interaural time differences with combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goupell MJ (2015) Interaural correlation-change discrimination in bilateral cochlear-implant users: effects of interaural frequency mismatch, centering, and age of onset of deafness. J Acoust Soc Am 137:1282–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goupell MJ, Litovsky RY (2015) Detection of changes in envelope correlation in bilateral cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 137:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592–2605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu H, Dietz M (2015) Comparison of interaural electrode pairing methods for bilateral cochlear implants. Trends Hear 2331216515617143Google Scholar
  15. Ihlefeld A, Carlyon RP, Kan A, Churchill TH, Litovsky RY (2015) Limitations on monaural and binaural temporal processing in bilateral cochlear implant listeners. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16:641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joris PX, Smith PH, Yin TC (1998) Coincidence detection in the auditory system: 50 years after Jeffress. Neuron 21:1235–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kan A, Stoelb C, Litovsky RY, Goupell MJ (2013) Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on binaural fusion and lateralization in bilateral cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 134:2923–2936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kan A, Litovsky RY, Goupell MJ (2015) Effects of interaural pitch-matching and auditory image centering on binaural sensitivity in cochlear-implant users. Ear Hear 36:e62–e68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kong YY, Carlyon RP (2010) Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 127:3114–3123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landsberger DM, Svrakic M, Roland JT Jr, Svirsky M (2015) The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 36:e207–e213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Litovsky RY, Jones GL, Agrawal S, van Hoesel R (2010) Effect of age at onset of deafness on binaural sensitivity in electric hearing in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 127:400–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Litovsky RY, Goupell MJ, Kan A, Landsberger DM (2017) Use of research interfaces for psychophysical studies with cochlear-implant users. Trends Hear 21:2331216517736464Google Scholar
  23. Long CJ, Nimmo-Smith I, Baguley DM, O'Driscoll M, Ramsden R, Otto SR, Axon PR, Carlyon RP (2005) Optimizing the clinical fit of auditory brain stem implants. Ear Hear 26:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu T, Litovsky R, Zeng FG (2011) Binaural unmasking with multiple adjacent masking electrodes in bilateral cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3934–3945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKay CM, O'Brien A, James CJ (1999) Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation. Hear Res 136:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noel VA, Eddington DK (2013) Sensitivity of bilateral cochlear implant users to fine-structure and envelope interaural time differences. J Acoust Soc Am 133:2314–2328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poulton EC (1979) Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psychol Bull 86:777–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Radeloff A, Mack M, Baghi M, Gstoettner WK, Adunka OF (2008) Variance of angular insertion depths in free-fitting and perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 29:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reiss LA, Turner CW, Erenberg SR, Gantz BJ (2007) Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reiss LA, Turner CW, Karsten SA, Gantz BJ (2014) Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation. Neuroscience 256:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reiss LA, Ito RA, Eggleston JL, Liao S, Becker JJ, Lakin CE, Warren FM, McMenomey SO (2015) Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience. Ear Hear 36:e23–e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schatzer R, Vermeire K, Visser D, Krenmayr A, Kals M, Voormolen M, Van de Heyning P, Zierhofer C (2014) Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch. Hear Res 309:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Studebaker GA (1985) A ‘rationalized’ arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tan CT, Martin B, Svirsky MA (2017) Pitch matching between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a contralateral ear with residual hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 28:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Marel KS, Briaire JJ, Wolterbeek R, Snel-Bongers J, Verbist BM, Frijns JH (2014) Diversity in cochlear morphology and its influence on cochlear implant electrode position. Ear Hear 35:e9–e20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Hoesel RJM, Jones GL, Litovsky RY (2009) Interaural time-delay sensitivity in bilateral cochlear implant users: effects of pulse rate, modulation rate, and place of stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vermeire K, Nobbe A, Schleich P, Nopp P, Voormolen MH, Van de Heyning PH (2008) Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: an evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Hear Res 245:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wess JM, Brungart DS, Bernstein JGW (2017) The effect of interaural mismatches on contralateral unmasking with single-sided vocoders. Ear Hear 38:374–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: I. fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williges B, Jurgens T, Hu H, Dietz M (2018) Coherent coding of enhanced interaural cues improves sound localization in noise with bilateral cochlear implants. Trends Hear 22:2331216518781746Google Scholar
  41. Yin TC, Chan JC (1990) Interaural time sensitivity in medial superior olive of cat. J Neurophysiol 64:465–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J. Goupell
    • 1
  • Stefano Cosentino
    • 1
  • Olga A. Stakhovskaya
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joshua G. W. Bernstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Hearing and Speech SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology CenterWalter Reed National Military Medical CenterBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations