Temporal quantization deteriorates the discrimination of interaural time differences

The Impact of Synchronized Cochlear Implant Sampling and Stimulation on Free-Field Spatial Hearing Outcomes: Comparing the ciPDA Research Processor to Clinical Processors

OBJECTIVES

Bilateral cochlear implant (BiCI) listeners use independent processors in each ear. This independence and lack of shared hardware prevents control of the timing of sampling and stimulation across ears, which precludes the development of bilaterally-coordinated signal processing strategies. As a result, these devices potentially reduce access to binaural cues and introduce disruptive artifacts. For example, measurements from two clinical processors demonstrate that independently-running processors introduce interaural incoherence. These issues are typically avoided in the laboratory by using research processors with bilaterally-synchronized hardware. However, these research processors do not typically run in real-time and are difficult to take out into the real-world due to their benchtop nature. Hence, the question of whether just applying hardware synchronization to reduce bilateral stimulation artifacts (and thereby potentially improve functional spatial hearing performance) has been difficult to answer. The CI personal digital assistant (ciPDA) research processor, which uses one clock to drive two processors, presented an opportunity to examine whether synchronization of hardware can have an impact on spatial hearing performance.

DESIGN

Free-field sound localization and spatial release from masking (SRM) were assessed in 10 BiCI listeners using both their clinical processors and the synchronized ciPDA processor. For sound localization, localization accuracy was compared within-subject for the two processor types. For SRM, speech reception thresholds were compared for spatially separated and co-located configurations, and the amount of unmasking was compared for synchronized and unsynchronized hardware. There were no deliberate changes of the sound processing strategy on the ciPDA to restore or improve binaural cues.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in localization accuracy between unsynchronized and synchronized hardware (p = 0.62). Speech reception thresholds were higher with the ciPDA. In addition, although five of eight participants demonstrated improved SRM with synchronized hardware, there was no significant difference in the amount of unmasking due to spatial separation between synchronized and unsynchronized hardware (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Using processors with synchronized hardware did not yield an improvement in sound localization or SRM for all individuals, suggesting that mere synchronization of hardware is not sufficient for improving spatial hearing outcomes. Further work is needed to improve sound coding strategies to facilitate access to spatial hearing cues. This study provides a benchmark for spatial hearing performance with real-time, bilaterally-synchronized research processors.

Synchronized Automatic Gain Control in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients Yields Significant Benefit in Static and Dynamic Listening Conditions

Individuals with bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) rely mostly on interaural level difference (ILD) cues to localize stationary sounds in the horizontal plane. Independent automatic gain control (AGC) in each device can distort this cue, resulting in poorer localization of stationary sound sources. However, little is known about how BiCI listeners perceive sound in motion. In this study, 12 BiCI listeners' spatial hearing abilities were assessed for both static and dynamic listening conditions when the sound processors were synchronized by applying the same compression gain to both devices as a means to better preserve the original ILD cues. Stimuli consisted of band-pass filtered (100-8000 Hz) Gaussian noise presented at various locations or panned over an array of loudspeakers. In the static listening condition, the distance between two sequentially presented stimuli was adaptively varied to arrive at the minimum audible angle, the smallest spatial separation at which the listener can correctly determine whether the second sound was to the left or right of the first. In the dynamic listening condition, participants identified if a single stimulus moved to the left or to the right. Velocity was held constant and the distance the stimulus traveled was adjusted using an adaptive procedure to determine the minimum audible movement angle. Median minimum audible angle decreased from 17.1° to 15.3° with the AGC synchronized. Median minimum audible movement angle decreased from 100° to 25.5°. These findings were statistically significant and support the hypothesis that synchronizing the AGC better preserves ILD cues and results in improved spatial hearing abilities. However, restoration of the ILD cue alone was not enough to bridge the large performance gap between BiCI listeners and normal-hearing listeners on these static and dynamic spatial hearing measures.