Murphy John, Summerfield A Quentin, O'Donoghue Gerard M, Moore David R
ENT Department, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011 Apr;75(4):489-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.01.002. Epub 2011 Feb 5.
Spatial hearing uses both monaural and binaural mechanisms that require sensitive hearing for normal function. Deaf children using either bilateral (BCI) or unilateral (UCI) cochlear implants would thus be expected to have poorer spatial hearing than normally hearing (NH) children. However, the relationship between spatial hearing in these various listener groups has not previously been extensively tested under ecologically valid conditions using a homogeneous group of children who are UCI users. We predicted that NH listeners would outperform BCI listeners who would, in turn, outperform UCI listeners.
We tested two methods of spatial hearing to provide norms for NH and UCI using children and preliminary data for BCI users. NH children (n=40) were age matched (6-15 years) to UCI (n=12) and BCI (n=6) listeners. Testing used a horizontal ring of loudspeakers within a booth in a hospital outpatient clinic. In a 'lateral release' task, single nouns were presented frontally, and masking noises were presented frontally, or 90° left or right. In a 'localization' task, allowing head movements, nouns were presented from loudspeakers separated by 30°, 60° or 120° about the midline.
Normally hearing children improved with age in speech detection in noise, but not in quiet or in lateral release. Implant users performed more poorly on all tasks. For frontal signals and noise, UCI and BCI listeners did not differ. For lateral noise, BCI listeners performed better on both sides (within ~2 dB of NH), whereas UCI listeners benefited only when the noise was opposite the unimplanted ear. Both the BCI and, surprisingly, the UCI listeners performed better than chance at all loudspeaker separations on the ecologically valid, localization task. However, the BCI listeners performed about twice as well and, in two cases, approached the performance of NH children.
Children using either UCI or BCI have useful spatial hearing. BCI listeners gain benefits on both sides, and localize better, but not as well as NH listeners.
空间听觉利用单耳和双耳机制,而这些机制需要灵敏的听力才能正常发挥功能。因此,使用双侧(BCI)或单侧(UCI)人工耳蜗的聋儿预计其空间听觉比听力正常(NH)的儿童要差。然而,此前尚未在生态有效条件下,使用一组同质的UCI使用者儿童,对这些不同听众群体的空间听觉之间的关系进行广泛测试。我们预测NH听众的表现将优于BCI听众,而BCI听众又将优于UCI听众。
我们测试了两种空间听觉方法,以提供NH和UCI儿童的规范数据以及BCI使用者的初步数据。NH儿童(n = 40)在年龄上与UCI(n = 12)和BCI(n = 6)听众相匹配(6 - 15岁)。测试在医院门诊的一个隔音室内使用水平排列的一圈扬声器进行。在“侧向释放”任务中,单个名词从正面呈现,掩蔽噪声从正面、或向左或向右90°呈现。在“定位”任务中,允许头部移动,名词从扬声器呈现,扬声器围绕中线相隔30°、60°或120°。
听力正常的儿童在噪声中的言语检测能力随年龄增长而提高,但在安静环境或侧向释放任务中则不然。植入使用者在所有任务中的表现都较差。对于正面信号和噪声,UCI和BCI听众没有差异。对于侧向噪声,BCI听众在两侧的表现都更好(在NH听众约2分贝范围内),而UCI听众仅在噪声与未植入耳朵相对时受益。在生态有效的定位任务中,BCI听众以及令人惊讶的是UCI听众在所有扬声器间隔下的表现都优于随机水平。然而,BCI听众的表现约为其两倍,在两种情况下接近NH儿童的表现。
使用UCI或BCI的儿童具有有效的空间听觉。BCI听众在两侧都受益,并且定位更好,但不如NH听众。