Spatial Hearing Difficulties in Reaching Space in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Children Improve With Head Movements

Aurélie Coudert, Valérie Gaveau, Julie Gatel, Grégoire Verdelet, Romeo Salemme, Alessandro Farne, Francesco Pavani, Eric Truy, Aurélie Coudert, Valérie Gaveau, Julie Gatel, Grégoire Verdelet, Romeo Salemme, Alessandro Farne, Francesco Pavani, Eric Truy

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess three-dimensional (3D) spatial hearing abilities in reaching space of children and adolescents fitted with bilateral cochlear implants (BCI). The study also investigated the impact of spontaneous head movements on sound localization abilities.

Design: BCI children (N = 18, aged between 8 and 17) and age-matched normal-hearing (NH) controls (N = 18) took part in the study. Tests were performed using immersive virtual reality equipment that allowed control over visual information and initial eye position, as well as real-time 3D motion tracking of head and hand position with subcentimeter accuracy. The experiment exploited these technical features to achieve trial-by-trial exact positioning in head-centered coordinates of a single loudspeaker used for real, near-field sound delivery, which was reproducible across trials and participants. Using this novel approach, broadband sounds were delivered at different azimuths within the participants' arm length, in front and back space, at two different distances from their heads. Continuous head-monitoring allowed us to compare two listening conditions: "head immobile" (no head movements allowed) and "head moving" (spontaneous head movements allowed). Sound localization performance was assessed by computing the mean 3D error (i.e. the difference in space between the X-Y-Z position of the loudspeaker and the participant's final hand position used to indicate the localization of the sound's source), as well as the percentage of front-back and left-right confusions in azimuth, and the discriminability between two nearby distances. Several clinical factors (i.e. age at test, interimplant interval, and duration of binaural experience) were also correlated with the mean 3D error. Finally, the Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale was administered to BCI participants and their parents.

Results: Although BCI participants distinguished well between left and right sound sources, near-field spatial hearing remained challenging, particularly under the " head immobile" condition. Without visual priors of the sound position, response accuracy was lower than that of their NH peers, as evidenced by the mean 3D error (BCI: 55 cm, NH: 24 cm, p = 0.008). The BCI group mainly pointed along the interaural axis, corresponding to the position of their CI microphones. This led to important front-back confusions (44.6%). Distance discrimination also remained challenging for BCI users, mostly due to sound compression applied by their processor. Notably, BCI users benefitted from head movements under the "head moving" condition, with a significant decrease of the 3D error when pointing to front targets (p < 0.001). Interimplant interval was correlated with 3D error (p < 0.001), whereas no correlation with self-assessment of spatial hearing difficulties emerged (p = 0.9).

Conclusions: In reaching space, BCI children and adolescents are able to extract enough auditory cues to discriminate sound side. However, without any visual cues or spontaneous head movements during sound emission, their localization abilities are substantially impaired for front-back and distance discrimination. Exploring the environment with head movements was a valuable strategy for improving sound localization within individuals with different clinical backgrounds. These novel findings could prompt new perspectives to better understand sound localization maturation in BCI children, and more broadly in patients with hearing loss.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03738592.

Conflict of interest statement

V.G., R.S., A.F., and F.P. filed a patenting procedure for the system reported in this study, patent pending. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Ear & Hearing is published on behalf of the American Auditory Society, by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Experimental setup. A, Apparatus based on the virtual reality system, comprising (1) a head-mounted display (HTC VIVE), (2) a VIVE tracker mounted on a loudspeaker, and (3) another tracker mounted on a hand-held pointer. Head and trackers positions were recorded in real time by two cameras, and defined in a head-centered system. B, Sound localization setup. Black and gray circles indicate two target distances in reaching space, at 35 cm (D35) and 55 cm (D55). Three axes were defined according to the reference frame (i.e., participant head-centered): X, azimuth; Y, elevation; and Z, distance.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Three-dimensional sound localization performance of normal-hearing (NH) and bilateral cochlear implant (BCI) children under the head immobile condition. Black symbols represent the sound sources and colored dots correspond to the mean response of each participant per target. A, Bird’s eye view showing hand responses as a function of stimulation side (circles for left sounds and triangles for right sounds) and distances (blue and red for 35 and 55 cm sound sources, respectively). B, Lateral view showing hand responses as a function of front stimulation (green diamonds) and back stimulation (yellow triangles).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Sound distance perception in normal-hearing (NH) and bilateral cochlear implant (BCI) children under the head immobile condition. Thick lines represent the mean response distances for each group for D35 (black lines: i.e., sound sources at 35 cm), and D55 (red lines: i.e., sound sources at 55 cm). Thin black lines join black and red dots for each participant. Asterisks indicate significant differences (paired t-test, *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001).
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Three-dimensional sound localization performance of children fitted with bilateral cochlear implant during the head moving condition. A, Bird’s eye view showing hand responses as a function of stimulation side (circles for left sounds and triangles for right sounds) and distances (blue and red for 35 and 55 cm sound sources, respectively). Black symbols represent the sound sources and colored dots correspond to the mean response of each participant per target. B, Left–right confusions as a function of listening condition. Thick black lines represent the mean percentage of confusions when head movements were forbidden, and the thick red line when head movements were free during sound emission. Thin black lines join black and red dots for each BCI participant. C, Lateral view showing hand responses for front–back stimulations. D, Front–back confusions as a function of listening condition. Asterisks indicate significant differences (Mcnemar test, ***p < 0.001). BCI, bilateral cochlear implant; NH, normal hearing.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Effect of head motion on spatial performance. A, Three-dimensional 3D error in both groups (BCI and NH) as a function of listening condition. Thick lines represent the mean 3D error within each group during HI listening (black) and HM listening (red) condition. Thin black lines join black and red dots for each participant. Asterisks indicate significant differences (paired t-test, **p < 0.01). B, Listening improvement index as a function of the percentage of trials with at least one head movement during sound emission. BCI, bilateral cochlear implant; NH, normal hearing.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Three-dimensional error (in centimeters) under the head immobile condition as a function of interimplant interval (in months).

References

    1. Archer-Boyd A. W., Carlyon R. P. Simulations of the effect of unlinked cochlear-implant automatic gain control and head movement on interaural level differences. J Acoust Soc Am, (2019). 145, 1389.
    1. Brimijoin W. O., McShefferty D., Akeroyd M. A. Auditory and visual orienting responses in listeners with and without hearing-impairment. J Acoust Soc Am, (2010). 127, 3678–3688.
    1. Brimijoin W. O., McShefferty D., Akeroyd M. A. Undirected head movements of listeners with asymmetrical hearing impairment during a speech-in-noise task. Hear Res, (2012). 283, 162–168.
    1. Brungart D. S. Auditory localization of nearby sources. III. Stimulus effects. J Acoust Soc Am, (1999). 106, 3589–3602.
    1. Brungart D. S., Rabinowitz W. M. Auditory localization of nearby sources. Head-related transfer functions. J Acoust Soc Am, (1999). 1061465–1479.
    1. Brungart D. S., Durlach N. I., Rabinowitz W. M. Auditory localization of nearby sources. II. Localization of a broadband source. J Acoust Soc Am, (1999). 106, 1956–1968.
    1. Calcagno E. R., Abregú E. L., Eguía M. C., Vergara R. The role of vision in auditory distance perception. Perception, (2012). 41, 175–192.
    1. Choi J. E., Moon I. J., Kim E. Y., Park H. S., Kim B. K., Chung W. H., Cho Y. S., Brown C. J., Hong S. H. Sound localization and speech perception in noise of pediatric cochlear implant recipients: Bimodal fitting versus bilateral cochlear implants. Ear Hear, (2017). 38, 426–440.
    1. Choi J. E., Hong S. H., Moon I. J. Academic performance, communication, and psychosocial development of prelingual deaf children with cochlear implants in mainstream schools. J Audiol Otol, (2020). 24, 61–70.
    1. Da Silva J. A. Scales for perceived egocentric distance in a large open field: Comparison of three psychophysical methods. Am J Psychol, (1985). 98, 119–144.
    1. Dillon H. (Hearing Aids. (2001). Boomerang press.
    1. Dorman M. F., Loiselle L., Stohl J., Yost W. A., Spahr A., Brown C., Cook S. Interaural level differences and sound source localization for bilateral cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear, (2014). 35, 633–640.
    1. Fischer T., Schmid C., Kompis M., Mantokoudis G., Caversaccio M., Wimmer W. Pinna-imitating microphone directionality improves sound localization and discrimination in bilateral cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, (2020). 42, 214–222.
    1. Freigang C., Richter N., Rübsamen R., Ludwig A. A. Age-related changes in sound localisation ability. Cell Tissue Res, (2015). 361, 371–386.
    1. Galvin K. L., Noble W. Adaptation of the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale for use with children, parents, and teachers. Cochlear Implants Int, (2013). 14, 135–141.
    1. Galvin K. L., Mok M. Everyday listening performance of children before and after receiving a second cochlear implant: Results using the parent version of the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale. Ear Hear, (2016). 37, 93–102.
    1. Gordon K. A., Valero J., van Hoesel R., Papsin B. C. Abnormal timing delays in auditory brainstem responses evoked by bilateral cochlear implant use in children. Otol Neurotol, (2008). 29, 193–198.
    1. Gordon K. A., Papsin B. C. Benefits of short interimplant delays in children receiving bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol, (2009). 30, 319–331.
    1. Gordon K. A., Jiwani S., Papsin B. C. What is the optimal timing for bilateral cochlear implantation in children? Cochlear Implants Int, (2011). 12(Suppl 2), S8–14.
    1. Gordon K. A., Wong D. D. E., Papsin B. C. Bilateral input protects the cortex from unilaterally-driven reorganization in children who are deaf. Brain, (2013). 136(Pt 5), 1609–1625.
    1. Gordon K. A., Cushing S. L., Easwar V., Polonenko M. J., Papsin B. C. Binaural integration: A challenge to overcome for children with hearing loss. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, (2017). 25, 514–519.
    1. Grantham D. W., Ricketts T. A., Ashmead D. H., Labadie R. F., Haynes D. S. Localization by postlingually deafened adults fitted with a single cochlear implant. Laryngoscope, (2008). 118, 145–151.
    1. Grieco-Calub T. M., Litovsky R. Y. Sound localization skills in children who use bilateral cochlear implants and in children with normal acoustic hearing. Ear Hear, (2010). 31, 645–656.
    1. Kerber S., Seeber B. U. Sound localization in noise by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, (2012). 33, 445–457.
    1. Khing P. P., Swanson B. A., Ambikairajah E. The effect of automatic gain control structure and release time on cochlear implant speech intelligibility. PLoS One, (2013). 8, e82263.
    1. Killan C. F., Harman S., Killan E. C. Changes in sound-source localization for children with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss following simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int, (2018). 19, 284–291.
    1. Killan C., Scally A., Killan E., Totten C., Raine C. Factors affecting sound-source localization in children with simultaneous or sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Ear Hear, (2019). 40, 870–877.
    1. Kim C., Mason R., Brookes T. Head movements made by listeners in experimental and real-life listening activities. J Audio Eng Soc, (2013). 61, 425–438.
    1. King A. J. Visual influences on auditory spatial learning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, (2009). 364, 331–339.
    1. Kolarik A. J., Moore B. C., Zahorik P., Cirstea S., Pardhan S. Auditory distance perception in humans: A review of cues, development, neuronal bases, and effects of sensory loss. Atten Percept Psychophys, (2016). 78, 373–395.
    1. Kopčo N., Shinn-Cunningham B. G. Effect of stimulus spectrum on distance perception for nearby sources. J Acoust Soc Am, (2011). 130, 1530–1541.
    1. Kral A., Tillein J. Brain plasticity under cochlear implant stimulation. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, (2006). 64, 89–108.
    1. Kral A., Dorman M. F., Wilson B. S. Neuronal development of hearing and language: Cochlear implants and critical periods. Annu Rev Neurosci, (2019). 42, 47–65.
    1. Kühnle S., Ludwig A. A., Meuret S., Küttner C., Witte C., Scholbach J., Fuchs M., Rübsamen R. Development of auditory localization accuracy and auditory spatial discrimination in children and adolescents. Audiol Neurootol, (2013). 18, 48–62.
    1. Kumpik D. P., Campbell C., Schnupp J. W. H., King A. J. Re-weighting of sound localization cues by audiovisual training. Front Neurosci, (2019). 13, 1164.
    1. Litovsky R. Y., Parkinson A., Arcaroli J., Peters R., Lake J., Johnstone P., Yu G. Bilateral cochlear implants in adults and children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, (2004). 130, 648–655.
    1. Litovsky R. Y. Review of recent work on spatial hearing skills in children with bilateral cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int, (2011). 12(Suppl 1), S30–S34.
    1. Litovsky R. Development of the auditory system. Handb Clin Neurol, (2015). 129, 55–72.
    1. Loomis J. M., Klatzky R. L., Philbeck J. W., Golledge R. G. Assessing auditory distance perception using perceptually directed action. Percept Psychophys, (1998). 60, 966–980.
    1. Middlebrooks J. C., Green D. M. Sound localization by human listeners. Annu Rev Psychol, (1991). 42, 135–159.
    1. Middlebrooks J. C. Sound localization. Handb Clin Neurol, (2015). 129, 99–116.
    1. Misurelli S. M., Litovsky R. Y. Spatial release from masking in children with normal hearing and with bilateral cochlear implants: Effect of interferer asymmetry. J Acoust Soc Am, (2012). 132, 380–391.
    1. Mueller M. F., Meisenbacher K., Lai W. K., Dillier N. Sound localization with bilateral cochlear implants in noise: How much do head movements contribute to localization? Cochlear Implants Int, (2014). 15, 36–42.
    1. Pastore M. T., Natale S. J., Yost W. A., Dorman M. F. Head movements allow listeners bilaterally implanted with cochlear implants to resolve front-back confusions. Ear Hear, (2018). 39, 1224–1231.
    1. Pavani F., Venturini M., Baruffaldi F., Artesini L., Bonfioli F., Frau G. N., van Zoest W. Spatial and non-spatial multisensory cueing in unilateral cochlear implant users. Hear Res, (2017). 344, 24–37.
    1. Perrett S., Noble W. The effect of head rotations on vertical plane sound localization. J Acoust Soc Am, (1997). 102, 2325–2332.
    1. Platt B. B., Warren D. H. Auditory localization : The importance of eye movements and a textured visual environment. Percept Psychophys, (1972). 12, 245–248.
    1. Rakerd B., Hartmann W. M. Localization of sound in rooms, III: Onset and duration effects. J Acoust Soc Am, (1986). 80, 1695–1706.
    1. Seeber B. U., Baumann U., Fastl H. Localization ability with bimodal hearing aids and bilateral cochlear implants. J. Acoust Soc Am, (2004). 116, 1698–1709.
    1. Shelton B. R., Searle C. L. The influence of vision on the absolute identification of sound-source position. Percept Psychophys, (1980). 28, 589–596.
    1. Shinn-Cunningham B. G., Kopco N., Martin T. J. Localizing nearby sound sources in a classroom: Binaural room impulse responses. J Acoust Soc Am, (2005). 117, 3100–3115.
    1. Shinn-Cunningham B., Best V., Lee A. K. (Middlebrooks J. C., Simon J. Z., Popper A. N., Fay R.R. (Eds.), Auditory object formation and selection. In The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party (pp. (2017). Springer.7–40).
    1. Simon F., Roman S., Truy E., Barone P., Belmin J., Blanchet C., Borel S., Charpiot A., Coez A., Deguine O., Farinetti A., Godey B., Lazard D., Marx M., Mosnier I., Nguyen Y., Teissier N., Virole B., Lescanne E., Loundon N. Guidelines (short version) of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology (SFORL) on pediatric cochlear implant indications. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis, (2019). 136, 385–391.
    1. Stöbich B., Zierhofer C. M., Hochmair E. S. Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear Hear, (1999). 20, 104–116.
    1. Tabry V., Zatorre R. J., Voss P. The influence of vision on sound localization abilities in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Front Psychol, (2013). 4, 932.
    1. Valzolgher C., Verdelet G., Salemme R., Lombardi L., Gaveau V., Farné A., Pavani F. Reaching to sounds in virtual reality: A multisensory-motor approach to promote adaptation to altered auditory cues. Neuropsychologia, (2020a). 149, 107665.
    1. Valzolgher C., Alzhaler M., Gessa E., Todeschini M., Nieto P., Verdelet G., Salemme R., Gaveau V., Marx M., Truy E., Barone P., Farnè A., Pavani F. The impact of a visual spatial frame on real sound-source localization in virtual reality. Curr Res Behav Sci, (2020b). 1, 100003.
    1. Van Deun L., van Wieringen A., Scherf F., Deggouj N., Desloovere C., Offeciers F. E., Van de Heyning P. H., Dhooge I. J., Wouters J. Earlier intervention leads to better sound localization in children with bilateral cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol, (2010). 15, 7–17.
    1. Van Hoesel R. Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol, (2004). 9, 234–246.
    1. van Wieringen A., Wouters J. What can we expect of normally-developing children implanted at a young age with respect to their auditory, linguistic and cognitive skills? Hear Res, (2015). 322, 171–179.
    1. Verdelet G., Desoche C., Volland F., Farnè A., Coudert A., Hermann R., Truy E., Gaveau V., Pavani F., Salemme R. Assessing spatial and temporal reliability of the vive system as a tool for naturalistic behavioural research. 2019 International Conference on 3D Immersion (IC3D) (2019). 1–810.1109/IC3D48390.2019.8975994
    1. Wallach H. The role of head movements and vestibular and visual cues in sound localization. J Experimental Psychol, (1940). 27339
    1. Wightman F. L., Kistler D. J. Resolution of front-back ambiguity in spatial hearing by listener and source movement. J Acoust Soc Am, (1999). 105, 2841–2853.
    1. Zahorik P. Estimating sound source distance with and without vision. Optom Vis Sci, (2001). 78, 270–275.
    1. Zheng Y., Godar S. P., Litovsky R. Y. Development of sound localization strategies in children with bilateral cochlear implants. PloS One, (2015). 10, e0135790.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다