Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2023; 34(09/10): 206-216
DOI: 10.1055/a-2181-2398
Research Article

Effects of Adding Monaural and Binaural Noise to a Dichotic Listening Task

Carrie M. Clancy 
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Alyssa Davidson 
2   Audiology and Speech Center, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
3   Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Mark Borgstrom
4   University Information Technologies Services, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Kiana Robinson
4   University Information Technologies Services, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Frank E. Musiek
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The Dichotic Digits Test (DDT) evaluates central auditory nervous system (CANS) dysfunction. The DDT is widely used in audiology clinics worldwide, because it is clinically efficient and has good sensitivity and specificity for CANS lesions. However, the DDT shows a strong ceiling effect, which can mitigate its ability to detect subtle CANS dysfunction.

Purpose This study examines the effects of adding monaural and binaural speech-spectrum noise to the DDT in an effort to make the test more taxing to the CANS and thereby reduce the observed ceiling effect.

Research Design This was an experimental repeated measures study.

Study Sample The participants were 20 adults aged 18 to 50 years with bilaterally symmetric speech-reception thresholds and pure-tone thresholds (250-8000 Hz) of 25 dB HL or better.

Data Collection and Analysis Each participant was administered one standard DDT test list (no noise added) and DDT test lists with binaural, monaural right, and monaural left noise added. For each of the noise-added conditions, lists were administered at two different signal-to-noise ratios, for a grand total of seven DDT test lists per participant, presented in randomized order. Monaural and binaural noise effects on DDT scoring indices (Right and Left Ear Percent Correct Scores, Combined Total Percent Correct Scores, and Dichotic Difference Scores), as well as noise effects on the right ear advantage for speech, were examined. Mixed model analyses of variance were used to examine fixed effects and interactions of Noise Condition and Ear.

Results Adding noise to the standard DDT systematically reduced Right and Left Ear Percent Correct Scores and Combined Total Percent Correct Scores. Statistically significant differences on all indices were found between monaural and binaural noise-added conditions, suggesting a possible advantage for binaural listening in noise.

Conclusions These findings suggest that adding noise to tests of dichotic listening increases the difficulty of the task, and that further investigation of dichotic listening patterns in noise could potentially lead to more sensitive clinical evaluations of CANS integrity and function.

Keywords

binaural hearing - ceiling effect - central auditory processing - dichotic listening - neuroaudiology - right-ear advantage - speech-in-noise


Publication History

Received: 29 March 2023

Accepted: 20 September 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
25 September 2023

Article published online:
12 December 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Weihing J, Atcherson SR. Dichotic listening tests. In: Musiek FE, Chermak GD. eds. Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder: Auditory Neuroscience and Diagnosis. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing;; 2014: 369-404
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Musiek FE, Weihing J. Perspectives on dichotic listening and the corpus callosum. Brain Cogn 2011; 76 (02) 225-232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kimura D. Some effects of temporal-lobe damage on auditory perception. Can J Psychol 1961; 15 (03) 156-165
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Kimura D. Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Can J Psychol 1961; 15 (03) 166-171
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Musiek FE, Baran JA. The Auditory System: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Correlates. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA:: Plural Publishing;; 2020: 216-217
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Westerhausen R, Hugdahl K. The corpus callosum in dichotic listening studies of hemispheric asymmetry: a review of clinical and experimental evidence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2008; 32 (05) 1044-1054
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Geschwind N, Levitsky W. Human brain: left-right asymmetries in temporal speech region. Science 1968; 161 (3837) 186-187
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Musiek FE, Reeves AG. Asymmetries of the auditory areas of the cerebrum. J Am Acad Audiol 1990; 1 (04) 240-245
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Penhune VB, Zatorre RJ, MacDonald JD, Evans AC. Interhemispheric anatomical differences in human primary auditory cortex: probabilistic mapping and volume measurement from magnetic resonance scans. Cereb Cortex 1996; 6 (05) 661-672
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Stevens SS, Davis H. Hearing, Its Psychology and Physiology. New York:: American Institute of Physics;; 1983
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Broadbent DE. The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. J Exp Psychol 1954; 47 (03) 191-196
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Ptacek PH. An experimental investigation of dichotic word presentation. J Speech Hear Disord 1954; 19 (04) 412-422
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bhatt IS, Wang J. Evaluation of dichotic listening performance in normal-hearing, noise-exposed young females. Hear Res 2019; 380: 10-21
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Emanuel DC, Ficca KN, Korczak P. Survey of the diagnosis and management of auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol 2011; 20 (01) 48-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Davidson A, Marrone N, Wong B, Musiek F. Predicting hearing aid satisfaction in adults: A systematic review of speech-in-noise tests and other behavioral measures. Ear Hear 2021; 42 (06) 1485-1498
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 De Sousa KC, Smits C, Moore DR, Myburgh HC, Swanepoel W. Pure-tone audiometry without bone-conduction thresholds: using the digits-in-noise test to detect conductive hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (10) 801-808
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 De Sousa KC, Swanepoel W, Moore DR, Myburgh HC, Smits C. Improving sensitivity of the digits-in-noise test using antiphasic stimuli. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (02) 442-450
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 van 't Hooft JJ, Pelkmans W, Tomassen J. et al. Distinct disease mechanisms may underlie cognitive decline related to hearing loss in different age groups. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2023; 94 (04) 314-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Simons IA, Goderie T, Lissenberg-Witte BI, Versfeld NJ, Kramer SE, van Wier MF. The effects of tinnitus and tinnitus annoyance on need for recovery after work: results of the Netherland longitudinal study on hearing. Ear Hear 2023; 44 (04) 768-775
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Musiek FE. Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 1983; 4 (02) 79-83
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Hurley RM, Musiek FE. Effectiveness of three central auditory processing (CAP) tests in identifying cerebral lesions. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8 (04) 257-262
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Musiek F, Gollegly K, Baran J. Myelination of the corpus callosum and auditory processing problems in children: theoretical and clinical correlates. Semin Hear 1984; 5 (03) 231-240
    Thieme ConnectSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Musiek FE, Gollegly KM, Kibbe KS, Verkest-Lenz SB. Proposed screening test for central auditory disorders: follow-up on the dichotic digits test. Am J Otol 1991; 12 (02) 109-113
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Austin PC, Brunner LJ. Type I error inflation in the presence of a ceiling effect. Am Stat 2003; 57 (02) 97-104
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol 1951; 41 (05) 329-335
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Audacity®: Free audio editor and recorder [Computer Software]. Version 2.3.1. Audacity Team; 2019
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Chaiklin JB, Font J, Dixon RF. Spondee thresholds measured in ascending 5-dB steps. J Speech Hear Res 1967; 10 (01) 141-145
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Citations – REDCap. Projectredcap.org. Accessed March 20, 2023 at: https://projectredcap.org/resources/citations/
  • 29 Moore DR. Anatomy and physiology of binaural hearing. Audiology 1991; 30 (03) 125-134
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Avan P, Giraudet F, Büki B. Importance of binaural hearing. Audiol Neurotol 2015; 20 (Suppl. 01) 3-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 MacKeith NW, Coles RRA. Binaural advantages in hearing of speech. J Laryngol Otol 1971; 85 (03) 213-232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Sendesen E, Colak H, Korkut Y, Yalcınkaya E, Sennaroglu G. The right ear advantage – a perspective from speech perception in noise test. Hear Balance Commun 2023; 21 (04) 1-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Pickles JO, Comis SD. Role of centrifugal pathways to cochlear nucleus in detection of signals in noise. J Neurophysiol 1973; 36 (06) 1131-1137
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Kawase T, Delgutte B, Liberman MC. Antimasking effects of the olivocochlear reflex. II. Enhancement of auditory-nerve response to masked tones. J Neurophysiol 1993; 70 (06) 2533-2549
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Cooper NP, Guinan Jr JJ. Efferent-mediated control of basilar membrane motion. J Physiol 2006; 576 (Pt 1): 49-54
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 de Boer J, Thornton AR, Krumbholz K. What is the role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech-in-noise processing?. J Neurophysiol 2012; 107 (05) 1301-1312
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Shabtai NR, Nehoran I, Ben-Asher M, Rafaely B. Intelligibility of speech in noise under diotic and dichotic binaural listening. Appl Acoust 2017; 125: 173-175
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Zwislocki JJ. A theory of central auditory masking and its partial validation. J Acoust Soc Am 1972; 52 (2B): 44-659
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Mills JH, Dubno JR, He N. Masking by ipsilateral and contralateral maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100 (05) 3336-3344
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Dos Santos Sequeira S, Specht K, Hämäläinen H, Hugdahl K. The effects of background noise on dichotic listening to consonant-vowel syllables. Brain Lang 2008; 107 (01) 11-15
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Wilson RH, Jaffe MS. Interactions of age, ear, and stimulus complexity on dichotic digit recognition. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7 (05) 358-364
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Daneman M. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (01) 593-608
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Helfer KS, Freyman RL. Stimulus and listener factors affecting age-related changes in competing speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136 (02) 748-759
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Moore DR, Edmondson-Jones M, Dawes P. et al. Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and cognition from 40-69 years of age. PLoS One 2014; 9 (09) e107720
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Hiscock M, Mackay M. The sex difference in dichotic listening: multiple negative findings. Neuropsychologia 1985; 23 (03) 441-444 [published correction appears in Neuropsychologia 1986;24(4):608]
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Golding M, Taylor A, Cupples L, Mitchell P. Odds of demonstrating auditory processing abnormality in the average older adult: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (02) 129-138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Fischer ME, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM. et al. Dichotic digits test performance across the ages: results from two large epidemiologic cohort studies. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (03) 314-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Voyer D. Sex differences in dichotic listening. Brain Cogn 2011; 76 (02) 245-255
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Bryden MP. Laterality effects in dichotic listening: relations with handedness and reading ability in children. Neuropsychologia 1970; 8 (04) 443-450
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Bever TG, Chiarello RJ. Cerebral dominance in musicians and nonmusicians. Science 1974; 185 (4150) 537-539
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Nelson MD, Wilson RH, Kornhass S. Performance of musicians and nonmusicians on dichotic chords, dichotic CVs, and dichotic digits. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (10) 536-544
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar