Binaural redundancy and inter-aural time difference cues for patients wearing a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears

References

• Armstrong M., Pegg P., James C., Blamey P. Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. Am J Otol 1997; 18: S140–141
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bench R.J. & Doyle J.M. 1979. The BKB/A (Bamford-Kowal-Bench/ Australian version) sentence lists for hearing-impaired children. La Trobe University, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Blauert J. Spatial Hearing: the Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1983
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W., Plomp R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83: 1508–1516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W., Plomp R. Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 86: 1374–1383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257–265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Parkinson A., Newall P. Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. The Vanderbilt hearing aid report II, G. Studebaker, F. Bess, L. Beck. York Press, Parkton, MD 1991; 295–300
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H., Trans K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K., et al. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96: 2108–2120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Hill, M., Brew J., Incerti, P., Priolo, S., , et al (in press). The effect of auditory experience on speech perception, localisation, and functional performance of children who use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears. Int J Audiol.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Hill, M., Dillon, H., & van Wanrooy, E. 2004c. Fitting and evaluating a hearing aid for recipients of unilateral cochlear implants: the NAL approach. Part 1. Hearing Review, 11((7)): 14–22, 58.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Incerti P., Hill M. Comparing cochlear implant with hearing aid to bilateral microphone inputs for unilateral cochlear implant users. Aus NZ J Audiol 2003; 25: 99–109
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Incerti, P., Hill, M., & Brew, J. 2004a. Fitting and evaluating a hearing aid for recipients of unilateral cochlear implants: Part 2. Binaural benefits. Hearing Review, 11((8)): 32, 36–40, 63.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Incerti P., Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use a hearing aid and a cochlear implant in opposite ears. Ear Hear 2004b; 25(1)9–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Psarros C., Hill M. Hearing aid use with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system for children who switched from the SPEAK to the ACE strategy. Aus NZ J Audiol 2000; 22: 123–132
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Psarros C., Hill M., Dillon H., Incerti P. Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear?. Ear Hear 2001; 22(5)365–380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day G., Browning G., Gatehouse S. Benefit from binaural hearing aids in individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Brit J Audiol 1988; 22(4)273–277
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon H. NAL-NL1: a new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 1999; 52(4)10–16
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H., Keidser G., O'Brien A., Silberstein H. Sound quality comparisons of advanced hearing aids. Hear J 2003; 56(4)30–40
   Google Scholar
• Dooley G.J., Blamey B.J., Seligman P.M., Alcantara J.I., Clark G.M., et al. Combined electrical and acoustical stimulation using a bimodal prosthesis. Arch Otolaryng Head Neck Surg 1993; 119: 55–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durlach, N.I. 1972. Binaural signal detection: Equalization and cancellation theory. In: J.V. Tobias (ed.) Foundations of modern auditory theory, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 369–462.
   Google Scholar
• Durlach N.I., Colburn H.S. Binaural phenomena. Handbook of perception, vol. 4, Hearing, Carteret, Friedman. Academic Press, New York 1978; 360–466
   Google Scholar
• Grimes A., Mueller H., Malley J. Examination of binaural amplification in children. Ear Hear 1981; 2(5)208–210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grose J.H., Poth E.A., Peters R.W. Masking level differences for tones and speech in elderly listeners with relatively normal audiograms. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37: 422–428
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirsh I.J. The influence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition. J Acoust Soc Am 1948; 20: 536–544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger J., Brown D., Smith S. Effect of peripheral hearing loss on the masking level difference. Arch Otolaryngol 1984; 110: 290–296
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansson M.S.K., Arlinger S. Binaural masking level difference for speech signals in noise. Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 279–284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson D.T., Wilson B.S., Zerbi M., van den Honert C., Finley C.C., et al. Bilateral cochlear implants controlled by a single speech processor. Am J Otol 1998; 19: 758–761
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levitt H., Rabiner L.R. Binaural release from masking for speech and gain in intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1967; 42(3)601–608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Licklider J.C.R. The influence of interaural phase relations upon the masking of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1948; 20: 150–159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott H.J. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amp 2004; 8(2)49–82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McKay C.M., McDermott H.J., Vandali A.E. A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/ Nucleus Limited multielectrode coclear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 3367–3371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen W.O., Noffsinger D., Carhart R. Masking level differences encountered in clinical populations. Audiology 1976; 15: 287–301
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Amer 1978; 63(2)533–549
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson D.E., Jeffress L.A. Effect of varying the interaural noise correlation on the detectability of tonal sigals. J Acoust Soc Am 1963; 35: 1947–1952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schubert E.D. Some preliminary experiments on binaural time delay and intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1956; 28(5)895–901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shallop J., Arndt P., Turnacliff K.A. Expanded indications for cochlear implantation: perception results in seven adults with residual hearing. J Sp Lang Path Audiol 1992; 16: 141–148
   Google Scholar
• Shaw E.A.G. Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 1848–1861
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stubblefield J.H., Goldstein D.P. A test–retest reliability study on clinical measurement of masking level differences. Audiol 1977; 16: 419–431
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tyler R., Parkinson A.J., Wilson B.S., Witt S., Preece J.P., et al. Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization. Ear Hear 2002; 23(2)98–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hoesel R.J.M., Clark G.M. Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 495–507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hoesel R.J.M., Clark G.M. Speech results with a bilateral multi-channel cochlear implant for spatially separated signal and noise. Aus J Audiol 1999; 21: 23–28
   Google Scholar
• van Hoesel R., Ramsden R., O'Driscoll M. Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 137–148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., et al. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 608–624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltzman S.B., Cohen N.L., Whapiro W.H. Sensory aids in conjunction with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1992; 13: 308–312
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Hopkins J.L., Mance C.M., Novak RE. Detection and recognition masking-level differences for the individual CID W-1 spondaic words. J Speech Hear Res 1982; 25: 235–242
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Zizz C.A., Sperry J.L. Masking-level difference for spondaic words in 2000-msec bursts of broadband noise. J Am Acad Audiol 1994; 5(4)236–242
   PubMedGoogle Scholar