Sound Source Localization by Normal-Hearing Listeners, Hearing-Impaired Listeners and Cochlear Implant Listeners

Dorman, Michael F.; Loiselle, Louise; Cook, Sarah; Yost, William A.; Gifford, René H.

doi:10.1159/000444740

Cited by 102 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While there was a limited number of subjects in this study, the data consistent with previous SSD studies [Cabral et al, 2016;Dorman et al, 2016;Finke et al, 2017;Firszt et al, 2012a, b;Kuppler et al, 2013;Kitoh et al, 2016;Mertens et al, 2015aMertens et al, , 2017Nawaz et al, 2014;Rahne and Plontke, 2016;Távora-Vieira et al, 2015;Tokita et al, 2014;Van de Heyning et al, 2008;Vermeire and Van de Heyning, 2009;Zeitler et al, 2015].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Localization was significantly better with the CI on, consistent with previous studies [Dorman et al, 2016;Firszt et al, 2012a, b;Mertens et al, 2015a;Nawaz et al, 2014;Távora-Vieira et al, 2015;Vermeire and Van de Heyning, 2009;Zeitler et al, 2015]. The mean improvement in RMSE across all subjects was 13.8°, with better localization in 13 of 18 subjects.…”

Section: Localizationsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Mean RMSE with the CI on (48.7°) remained much poorer than that of the NH control group (16.8°). Mean localization across all subjects was also somewhat poorer than reported in previous SSD CI studies [Arndt et al, 2011;Dorman et al, 2016;Firszt et al, 2012a;Távora-Vieira et al, 2015;Zeitler et al, 2015], possibly due to study differences in terms of the experimental setup (speaker placement and spacing, stimulus type level roving, etc.) and the inclusion of SSD subjects with mild-to-moderate hearing loss.…”

Section: Localizationcontrasting

confidence: 69%

“…It is possible that some of the correlations between SSQ sub-tests and localization were spurious, and do not reflect fundamental relationships between these subjective and behavioral measures. Somewhat surprisingly, there was no correlation between changes in RMSE after 1 year of CI experience and the change in Spatial scores after implantation, consistent with findings from Dorman et al [2016]. It could be that subjects may have overestimated their spatial hearing after CI, or that the localization task was too difficult or not sensitive enough to improvements in spatial perception.…”

Section: Relationships Between Subjective and Behavioral Measuressupporting

confidence: 65%

“…For SSD patients, restoration of binaural function is possible with a cochlear implant (CI). A number of studies have shown that CI can improve SSD patients' localization, speech understanding in noise, and QoL [Cabral et al, 2016;Dorman et al, 2016;Finke et al, 2017;Firszt et al, 2012a, b;Kuppler et al, 2013;Kitoh et al, 2016;Mertens et al, 2015aMertens et al, , b, 2017Nawaz et al, 2014;Rahne and Plontke, 2016;Távora-Vieira et al, 2015;Tokita et al, 2014;Van de Heyning et al, 2008;Vermeire and Van de Heyning, 2009;Zeitler et al, 2015]. Many SSD patients also are affected by debilitating tinnitus, for which there is no consistently effective intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Binaural Perception in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users with Unrestricted or Restricted Acoustic Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear

Dorbeau

Galvin

et al. 2018

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implantation (CI) can benefit patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) in terms of sound localization, speech understanding in noise, tinnitus severity, and quality of life (QoL). In previous studies, CI outcomes have been largely reported for SSD patients with normal “unrestricted” hearing in the contralateral ear. However, SSD patients may often have some degree of hearing loss in the contralateral ear (“restricted” acoustic hearing). In this study, we report results from a French clinical trial for CI in in SSD patients (NCT02204618). Localization, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise, tinnitus severity, and QoL were evaluated in 18 SSD patients 1 year after CI. Data were analyzed for 2 subject groups according to the pure-tone average thresholds in the non-implanted ear: unrestricted acoustic hearing (UNRES; ≤25 dB HL; n = 10) and restricted acoustic hearing (RES; > 25 dB HL; n = 8). Across all subjects, localization was significantly better with the CI on than off (p = 0.005); there was no significant difference between subject groups (p = 0.301). When speech and noise were co-located (S0N0), there was no significant difference in SRTs with the CI on or off (p = 0.480); SRTs were significantly better for the UNRES than for the RES group (p = 0.005). When speech and noise were spatially separated (S_CIN_NH), SRTs were significantly better with the CI on than off (p < 0.001). While SRTs were better for the UNRES than for the RES group (p = 0.024), the CI benefit was more than 50% greater for the RES group due to the restoration of high-frequency speech cues. Questionnaire data showed that tinnitus severity was significantly reduced (p = 0.045) and QoL was significantly improved after one year of experience with the CI (p < 0.001). Age at testing was significantly correlated with SRTs for the S0N0 condition; duration of deafness was correlated with SRTs for the S_CIN_NH condition. There were relatively few correlations between behavioral and subjective measures, suggesting that both were valuable when assessing CI benefits for SSD patients. The present data suggest that indications for CI should be expanded to include unilaterally deaf patients who have normal hearing or mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the non-implanted ear.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Localizationsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Localizationcontrasting

confidence: 69%

Section: Relationships Between Subjective and Behavioral Measuressupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Binaural Perception in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users with Unrestricted or Restricted Acoustic Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear

Dorbeau

Galvin

et al. 2018

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improving disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment using novel bionic technologies

Manero

Prock‐Gibbs

Gandhi

et al. 2022

Bioengineering & Transla Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased human life expectancy, due in part to improvements in infant and childhood survival, more active lifestyles, in combination with higher patient expectations for better health outcomes, is leading to an extensive change in the number, type and manner in which health conditions are treated. Over the next decades as the global population rapidly progresses toward a super‐aging society, meeting the long‐term quality of care needs is forecast to present a major healthcare challenge. The goal is to ensure longer periods of good health, a sustained sense of well‐being, with extended periods of activity, social engagement, and productivity. To accomplish these goals, multifunctionalized interfaces are an indispensable component of next generation medical technologies. The development of more sophisticated materials and devices as well as an improved understanding of human disease is forecast to revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of conditions ranging from osteoarthritis to Alzheimer's disease and will impact disease prevention. This review examines emerging cutting‐edge bionic materials, devices and technologies developed to advance disease prevention, and medical care and treatment in our elderly population including developments in smart bandages, cochlear implants, and the increasing role of artificial intelligence and nanorobotics in medicine.

show abstract

Auditive training effects from a dichotic listening app in children with dyslexia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dichotic listening (DL) taps information on the brain's language laterality, processing, and attention. Research has shown that DL responses in dyslexia deviate from the typical pattern. Here, effects of DL training and its correspondence to rapid naming (RAN) and digit span (DS) in typical children and children with dyslexia were assessed. Three groups of third graders participated: two training groups, control training (CT) and dyslexia training (DT), and a control group that received no training (control no training, CnT). All took part in testing pretraining and posttraining. DL measures were on laterality, response scores, and attention. The three groups showed different response patterns: minor changes in CnT, change in all measures in CT, and some changes in DT. RAN and DS scores correlated significantly with some of the DL measures, especially with the attention scores. Our findings support arguments that brain architecture for language in dyslexia is lateralised in the same way as in children without dyslexia. However, the ability to modulate attention during DL is weaker in dyslexia than in typically developing children. A training‐induced normalisation of lateralisation was observed in free recall in the dyslexia group, which suggests that DL training may be a promising intervention approach.

show abstract

Sound Source Localization by Normal-Hearing Listeners, Hearing-Impaired Listeners and Cochlear Implant Listeners

Cited by 102 publications

References 16 publications

Binaural Perception in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users with Unrestricted or Restricted Acoustic Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear

Binaural Perception in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users with Unrestricted or Restricted Acoustic Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear

Improving disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment using novel bionic technologies

Auditive training effects from a dichotic listening app in children with dyslexia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About