Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2/2019

01-04-2019 | Cochlear Implant | Research Article

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

Authors: Matthew J. Goupell, Stefano Cosentino, Olga A. Stakhovskaya, Joshua G. W. Bernstein

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

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-range 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.
Footnotes
1
We performed pilot tests using a very low rate, 25 pps, for several BI-CI listeners, because Carlyon et al. (2010) suggested that 25 pps might yield less biased results than 1000 pps. The main reason for using very low-rate pulse trains around 25 pps is to reduce the influence of temporal pitch cues on the pitch perception, because some electrodes have a different upper limit of temporal pitch than others (e.g., Kong and Carlyon 2010). We found no apparent difference in using 25 or 1000 pps in our pilot tests for listeners who could perform the task. For a few of our BI-CI listeners, the low rate was so distracting that they had substantial difficulty or could not perform the interaural pitch-discrimination task. Changing to the higher rate allowed them to better attend to the pitch of the pulse train. We therefore opted for the higher stimulation rate for this study. Note, that this finding is in contrast to other studies where BI-CI listeners appeared to have no problem with interaural pitch discrimination using 25-pps pulse trains (e.g., Ihlefeld et al. 2015). The reason for the discrepancy is unclear and motivates further investigation on the use of very low rates in interaural pitch-discrimination tasks.
 
2
The Latin square design applied to listeners BCI1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. We recruited one extra BI-CI listener for the study, BCI3, who was tested on the same order of conditions as listener BCI5. Listener BCI6, who was tested with the reference electrodes in both the right and left ears, was assigned a unique order for the left ear, but the same order as BCI1 for the right ear.
 
Literature
go back to reference Adunka OF, Pillsbury HC, Kiefer J (2006) Combining perimodiolar electrode placement and atraumatic insertion properties in cochlear implantation—fact or fantasy? Acta Otolaryngol 126:475–482CrossRefPubMed Adunka OF, Pillsbury HC, Kiefer J (2006) Combining perimodiolar electrode placement and atraumatic insertion properties in cochlear implantation—fact or fantasy? Acta Otolaryngol 126:475–482CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Aronoff JM, Padilla M, Stelmach J, Landsberger DM (2016) Clinically paired electrodes are often not perceived as pitch matched. Trends Hear 20:2331216516668302 Aronoff JM, Padilla M, Stelmach J, Landsberger DM (2016) Clinically paired electrodes are often not perceived as pitch matched. Trends Hear 20:2331216516668302
go back to reference Baumann U, Nobbe A (2004) Pitch ranking with deeply inserted electrode arrays. Ear Hear 25:275–283CrossRefPubMed Baumann U, Nobbe A (2004) Pitch ranking with deeply inserted electrode arrays. Ear Hear 25:275–283CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 22:2331216518765514 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 22:2331216518765514
go back to reference Bierer JA, Nye AD (2014) Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels. Ear Hear 35:641–651CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bierer JA, Nye AD (2014) Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels. Ear Hear 35:641–651CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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 8:393–408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 8:393–408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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 11:625–640CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 11:625–640CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Carr CE, Konishi M (1990) A circuit for detection of interaural time differences in the brain stem of the barn owl. J Neurosci 10:3227–3246CrossRefPubMed Carr CE, Konishi M (1990) A circuit for detection of interaural time differences in the brain stem of the barn owl. J Neurosci 10:3227–3246CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Chatterjee M, Yu J (2010) A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 127:415–426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chatterjee M, Yu J (2010) A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 127:415–426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J (2008) Sensitivity to interaural time differences with combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10:131–141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J (2008) Sensitivity to interaural time differences with combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10:131–141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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 137:1282–1297CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 137:1282–1297CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592–2605CrossRefPubMed Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592–2605CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hu H, Dietz M (2015) Comparison of interaural electrode pairing methods for bilateral cochlear implants. Trends Hear 2331216515617143 Hu H, Dietz M (2015) Comparison of interaural electrode pairing methods for bilateral cochlear implants. Trends Hear 2331216515617143
go back to reference 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 16:641–652CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 16:641–652CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Joris PX, Smith PH, Yin TC (1998) Coincidence detection in the auditory system: 50 years after Jeffress. Neuron 21:1235–1238CrossRefPubMed Joris PX, Smith PH, Yin TC (1998) Coincidence detection in the auditory system: 50 years after Jeffress. Neuron 21:1235–1238CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 134:2923–2936CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 134:2923–2936CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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–e68CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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–e68CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Kong YY, Carlyon RP (2010) Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 127:3114–3123CrossRefPubMed Kong YY, Carlyon RP (2010) Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 127:3114–3123CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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–e213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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–e213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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 127:400–414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 127:400–414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Litovsky RY, Goupell MJ, Kan A, Landsberger DM (2017) Use of research interfaces for psychophysical studies with cochlear-implant users. Trends Hear 21:2331216517736464 Litovsky RY, Goupell MJ, Kan A, Landsberger DM (2017) Use of research interfaces for psychophysical studies with cochlear-implant users. Trends Hear 21:2331216517736464
go back to reference 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 26:251–262CrossRefPubMed 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 26:251–262CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lu T, Litovsky R, Zeng FG (2011) Binaural unmasking with multiple adjacent masking electrodes in bilateral cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3934–3945CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lu T, Litovsky R, Zeng FG (2011) Binaural unmasking with multiple adjacent masking electrodes in bilateral cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3934–3945CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference McKay CM, O'Brien A, James CJ (1999) Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation. Hear Res 136:159–164CrossRefPubMed McKay CM, O'Brien A, James CJ (1999) Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation. Hear Res 136:159–164CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Noel VA, Eddington DK (2013) Sensitivity of bilateral cochlear implant users to fine-structure and envelope interaural time differences. J Acoust Soc Am 133:2314–2328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Noel VA, Eddington DK (2013) Sensitivity of bilateral cochlear implant users to fine-structure and envelope interaural time differences. J Acoust Soc Am 133:2314–2328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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 29:131–136CrossRefPubMed 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 29:131–136CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Reiss LA, Turner CW, Karsten SA, Gantz BJ (2014) Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation. Neuroscience 256:43–52CrossRefPubMed Reiss LA, Turner CW, Karsten SA, Gantz BJ (2014) Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation. Neuroscience 256:43–52CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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–e34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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–e34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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 309:26–35CrossRefPubMed 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 309:26–35CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 28:187–199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 28:187–199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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–e20CrossRefPubMed 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–e20CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 10:557–567CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 10:557–567CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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 245:98–106CrossRefPubMed 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 245:98–106CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Wess JM, Brungart DS, Bernstein JGW (2017) The effect of interaural mismatches on contralateral unmasking with single-sided vocoders. Ear Hear 38:374–386CrossRefPubMed Wess JM, Brungart DS, Bernstein JGW (2017) The effect of interaural mismatches on contralateral unmasking with single-sided vocoders. Ear Hear 38:374–386CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: I. fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313CrossRefPubMed Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: I. fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 22:2331216518781746 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 22:2331216518781746
go back to reference Yin TC, Chan JC (1990) Interaural time sensitivity in medial superior olive of cat. J Neurophysiol 64:465–488CrossRefPubMed Yin TC, Chan JC (1990) Interaural time sensitivity in medial superior olive of cat. J Neurophysiol 64:465–488CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users
Authors
Matthew J. Goupell
Stefano Cosentino
Olga A. Stakhovskaya
Joshua G. W. Bernstein
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-018-00707-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2/2019 Go to the issue