What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to investigate how congenital versus acquired single-sided deafness affects spatial hearing adaptation and response times.

March 2, 2026Open Access

Spatial hearing adaptation in congenital and acquired single-sided deafness

Puntos clave

The aim is to investigate how congenital versus acquired single-sided deafness affects spatial hearing adaptation and response times.
Thirty-one single-sided deaf listeners (9 congenital, 11 acquired, 11 cochlear implant) performed localization tasks.
Tasks included azimuth and elevation localization using broadband noise.
Linear regression and mixed-effects models analyzed localization accuracy and response times.
SSD-CI listeners showed substantially improved azimuth localization with CI on compared to CI off.
Congenital SSD listeners outperformed acquired SSD listeners in localization accuracy.
All SSD groups exhibited poor vertical localization and slower response times than normal-hearing controls.
Cochlear implants enhanced processing efficiency, resulting in faster responses.

Resumen

Introduction Spatial hearing depends on binaural integration of interaural time and level differences and monaural spectral cues. Single-sided deafness (SSD) disrupts this process, impairing localization and speech perception. Congenital (SSDc) and acquired (SSDa) SSD provide unique models for studying cortical adaptation, while cochlear implantation (CI) offers partial restoration of binaural hearing. This study examined differences in localization performance and response promptness across SSDc, SSDa, and SSD-CI listeners. Methods Thirty-one SSD listeners (9 SSDc, 11 SSDa, and 11 SSD-CI) and 16 normal-hearing (NH) controls completed broadband noise localization tasks in azimuth (90°) and elevation (30°). Azimuth and elevation localization, bias, mean absolute error (MAE), and response promptness were analyzed using linear regression and mixed-effects models. Results SSD-CI listeners with CI on demonstrated significantly improved azimuth localization compared to CI off (gain = 0.97 vs. 0.26, MAE = 27°, vs. 47°, p 0.001). SSDc listeners performed more accurately than SSDa (gain = 0.57 vs. 0.17, p 0.001), consistent with enhanced adaptation to monaural cues following early deprivation. All SSD groups showed poor vertical localization on the deaf side (gain = 0.15) and slower responses (mean = 2.17 s −1 ), compared to NH (4.02 s −1 , p 0.037). CI was associated with faster responses, suggesting improved processing efficiency. Discussion Early deprivation in SSDc promotes compensatory strategies for spatial hearing, while SSDa shows more limited adaptation. CI can partially reintroduce binaural cues, improving horizontal localization and processing efficiency, though vertical localization deficits persist. Conclusion These findings demonstrate that auditory experience and hearing restoration jointly influence spatial hearing behavior. Understanding these adaptive patterns can guide individualized rehabilitation strategies and optimize outcomes for individuals with unilateral hearing loss.

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo