Localization cues with bilateral cochlear implants

Seeber, Bernhard U.; Fastl, H.

doi:10.1121/1.2821965

Cited by 137 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Poorer abilities using ITDs than ILDs observed in the CI group is consistent with previous literature involving adult bilateral cochlear implant users (Grantham et al 2008;Grantham et al 2007;Laback et al 2004;Seeber and Fastl 2008;van Hoesel and Tyler 2003).…”

Section: Children Have Difficulty Lateralizing Bilateral CI Stimulatisupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Considering that ITDs are generally the dominant cue for sound localization in normal hearing individuals (Seeber and Fastl 2008), this finding may indicate that children receiving bilateral CIs sequentially after a significant period of unilateral CI use (mean±sd = 4.9±2.8 years) have some difficulties localizing sound under everyday listening conditions. We suggest that children's poor performance interpreting ITDs could relate to a combination of factors, including; electrical as opposed to acoustic stimulation, unilaterallydriven auditory development, and insufficient matching of left and right cochlear implants with respect to place of stimulation.…”

Section: Children Have Difficulty Lateralizing Bilateral CI Stimulatimentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This improvement has been widely attributed to detection of inter-implant level differences (Grantham et al 2008;Grantham et al 2007;Laback et al 2004;Seeber and Fastl 2008;Senn et al 2005;Van Hoesel et al 2002).…”

Section: Adult Bilateral Cochlear Implant Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lateralization of Interimplant Timing and Level Differences in Children Who Use Bilateral Cochlear Implants

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implants provide hearing to people who are deaf, by electrically stimulating the auditory nerve. Children with a single cochlear implant suffer deficiencies inherent to unilateral hearing, including inability to locate sounds. A second cochlear implant may improve sound localization, which normally requires interpretation of differences in sound intensity and time of arrival between two ears. Currently, it is unknown whether these cues are available to children who were provided with a second cochlear implant after a period of using one implant alone. We asked whether such children could interpret inter-implant level and timing cues. Results indicated that children using two cochlear implants detected level cues but had difficulty interpreting timing cues. Further, children rarely reported that sounds were perceived to come from the middle. Children receiving bilateral cochlear implants sequentially do not process bilateral auditory cues normally but can use inter-implant level cues to make judgments about where sound is coming from.ii

show abstract

Section: Children Have Difficulty Lateralizing Bilateral CI Stimulatisupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Children Have Difficulty Lateralizing Bilateral CI Stimulatimentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lateralization of Interimplant Timing and Level Differences in Children Who Use Bilateral Cochlear Implants

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general and compared with unilateral implant conditions, adult recipients of bilateral implants perform fairly well in localization tasks in the horizontal plane [75,78,[84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]. For example, in five subjects using pink noise bursts presented from eight loudspeakers that spanned 108°, unilateral conditions resulted in 20° to 60°R MS errors, but only 10° RMS errors were noted for bilateral conditions [93].…”

Section: Localizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While studies show consistently good sensitivity for ILDs, sensitivity is poor for ITDs [75,[90][91][92][93][96][97]. For example, the effect of varied ITDs and ILDs using electrical pulse trains was evaluated in five bilateral implant subjects [93].…”

Section: Localizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoring hearing symmetry with two cochlear implants or one cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid

Firszt

Reeder²,

Skinner³

2008

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-With today's technology and the demonstrated success of cochlear implantation, along with expanded candidacy criteria, the opportunity to provide optimal hearing to both ears for individuals with severe-to-profound hearing loss is greater than ever. This article reviews the advantages of binaural hearing and the disadvantages of hearing with only one ear or hearing with two ears with significantly different sound thresholds. A case study is presented that demonstrates the benefit of bimodal hearing (i.e., a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and a contralateral hearing aid [HA]) in a nontraditional CI candidate with asymmetrical hearing thresholds. Then, selected studies in adult recipients who use a CI and contralateral HA or who use two CIs are summarized. The data overall demonstrate that bilateral CI recipients, traditional bimodal recipients, and nontraditional bimodal recipients experience substantial binaural hearing advantages, including improved speech recognition in noise, localization, and functional everyday communication. These results indicate that bilateral stimulation of the auditory system through a CI and contralateral HA or two CIs is beneficial and should become standard clinical practice.

show abstract

Effects of place of stimulation on the interaural time difference sensitivity in bilateral electrical intracochlear stimulations: Neurophysiological study in a rat model

Sunwoo

2021

J of Neuroscience Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the sensitivity of the neurons in the inferior colliculus (IC) in male and female rats to the interaural time differences (ITDs) conveyed in electrical pulse trains. Using bipolar pairs of electrodes that selectively activate the auditory nerve fibers at different intracochlear locations, we assessed whether the responses to electrical stimulation with ITDs in different frequency regions were processed differently. Most well‐isolated single units responded to the electrical stimulation in only one of the apical or basal cochlear regions, and they were classified as either apical or basal units. Regardless of the cochlear stimulating location, more than 70% of both apical and basal units were sensitive to ITDs of electrical stimulation. However, the pulse rate dependence of neural ITD sensitivity differed significantly depending on the location of the stimulation. Moreover, ITD discrimination thresholds and the relative incidence of ITD tuning type markedly differed between units activated by apical and basal stimulations. With apical stimulation, IC neurons had a higher incidence of peak‐type ITD function, which mostly exhibited the steepest position of the tuning curve within the rat's physiological ITD range of ±160 μs and, accordingly, had better ITD discrimination thresholds than those with basal stimulation. These results support the idea that ITD processing in the IC might be determined by functionally segregated frequency‐specific pathways from the cochlea to the auditory midbrain.

show abstract

Localization cues with bilateral cochlear implants

Cited by 137 publications

References 34 publications

Lateralization of Interimplant Timing and Level Differences in Children Who Use Bilateral Cochlear Implants

Lateralization of Interimplant Timing and Level Differences in Children Who Use Bilateral Cochlear Implants

Restoring hearing symmetry with two cochlear implants or one cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid

Effects of place of stimulation on the interaural time difference sensitivity in bilateral electrical intracochlear stimulations: Neurophysiological study in a rat model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About