Audiology & neuro-otology · 2023
Auditory Spatial Discrimination and Sound Localization in Single-Sided Deaf Participants Provided with a Cochlear Implant.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ludwig Alexandra Annemarie, Meuret Sylvia, Battmer Rolf-Dieter, Fuchs Michael, Ernst Arneborg, Schönwiesner Marc
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Spatial hearing is most accurate using both ears, but accuracy decreases in persons with asymmetrical hearing between ears. In participants with deafness in one ear but normal hearing in the other ear (single-sided deafness [SSD]), this difference can be compensated by a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). It has been shown that a CI can restore sound localization performance, but it is still unclear to what extent auditory spatial discrimination can be improved.
METHODS: The present study investigated auditory spatial discrimination using minimum audible angles (MAAs) in 18 CI-SSD participants. Results were compared to 120 age-matched normal-hearing (NH) listeners. Low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) noise bursts were presented from 4°, 30°, and 60° azimuth on the CI side and on the NH side. MAA thresholds were tested for correlation with localization performance in the same participants.
RESULTS: There were eight good performers and ten poor performers. There were more poor performers for LF signals than for HF signals. Performance on the CI side was comparable to performance on the NH side. Most difficulties occurred at 4° and at 30°. Eight of the good performers in the localization task were also good performers in the MAA task. Only the localization ability at 4° on the CI side was positively correlated with the MAA at that location.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a CI can restore localization ability but not necessarily auditory spatial discrimination at the same time. The ability to discriminate between adjacent locations may be trainable during rehabilitation to enhance important auditory skills.
METHODS: The present study investigated auditory spatial discrimination using minimum audible angles (MAAs) in 18 CI-SSD participants. Results were compared to 120 age-matched normal-hearing (NH) listeners. Low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) noise bursts were presented from 4°, 30°, and 60° azimuth on the CI side and on the NH side. MAA thresholds were tested for correlation with localization performance in the same participants.
RESULTS: There were eight good performers and ten poor performers. There were more poor performers for LF signals than for HF signals. Performance on the CI side was comparable to performance on the NH side. Most difficulties occurred at 4° and at 30°. Eight of the good performers in the localization task were also good performers in the MAA task. Only the localization ability at 4° on the CI side was positively correlated with the MAA at that location.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a CI can restore localization ability but not necessarily auditory spatial discrimination at the same time. The ability to discriminate between adjacent locations may be trainable during rehabilitation to enhance important auditory skills.