Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Audiol. Otol.
Sec. Clinical Research in Auditory Implants and Hearing Aids
Volume 2 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fauot.2024.1369812
This article is part of the Research Topic The Future of Cochlear Implants: Breakthroughs in Technology and Outcome Assessment View all 6 articles

Auditory Listening Effort and Reaction Time: A Comparative Study between Single Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Controls

Provisionally accepted
Marcus W. Voola Marcus W. Voola 1*Dayse Tavora-Vieira Dayse Tavora-Vieira 1,2,3Andre Wedekind Andre Wedekind 1,2Caris Bogdanov Caris Bogdanov 1,2Aanand Acharya Aanand Acharya 1,2
  • 1 Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia
  • 2 University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  • 3 Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Cochlear implant (CI) provision has been shown to be the only hearing rehabilitation option that can improve speech perception in noise and sound localisation in SSD listeners. Individuals with SSD are known to exert increased listening effort when compared to normal hearing individuals, and this remains true even with CI use. Recently, reaction time (RT) has emerged as a promising metric for quantifying listening effort. As such, the current study compared performance (RT and Accuracy) of SSD participants (with and without the use of their CI) to normal hearing (NH) listeners. We assessed three listening conditions: (1) monaural listening in quiet, (2) free field listening in quiet, and (3) free field listening in background noise. SSD CI data was retrospectively obtained from two past studies conducted by the group (Voola et al 2023 and Voola et al 2023b). For monaural listening and free field listening in quiet, the same 10 SSD CI participants and 10 NH controls was recruited. For free field listening in noise condition, 12 SSD CI participants and 12 NH controls were recruited. In all condition, participants were required to complete an auditory oddball task, discerning odd and even numbers. RT and target accuracy were the metrics recorded. In monaural listening conditions, SSD CI users exhibited significantly delayed RTs compared to their NHE and to NH controls when stimuli was played directly through the CI. Surprisingly, the RT for the NHE of SSD CI users was also delayed when compared to the NH controls. Free field listening in quiet conditions showed increased RTs for SSD CI users, with and without CI, compared to NH controls, indicating the persistent impact of SSD on processing. In free field listening in noise, CI use significantly improved RTs for SSD individuals but did not reach NH levels. Despite the RT differences, task accuracy remained comparable between groups. SSD CI users exhibited longer RTs in all test conditions, suggesting they expend more listening effort than normal hearing controls. This increased effort likely accounts for the delayed RTs, highlighting the additional processing challenges faced by SSD CI users.

    Keywords: cochlear implant, single sided deafness (SSD), reaction time (RT), listening effort, oddball auditory task

    Received: 13 Jan 2024; Accepted: 08 Jul 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Voola, Tavora-Vieira, Wedekind, Bogdanov and Acharya. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Marcus W. Voola, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.