Localization (Part 1)
Recently, I did an assignment for my sensation and perception class in which I found an article related to a topic of sensation and perception and did a critique of the article. That is, I briefly summarized the study detailed in the article, explained the positive and negative elements of the article and study, and then explained why it was relevant to sensation and perception as a general study. Reading, exploring, and explaining the article led me to think critically about the central question of the assignment: why does it matter?
The article “Sound localization in noise by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users” addresses the question of whether cochlear implant users can regain any abilities, besides hearing, that are associated with the ears. The main area of concern in this particular article is localization. Before this study, several experiments had been carried out which explored and discussed sound localization and cochlear implants in relation to one another. However, these experiments left out the factor of noise. Noise in the background affects sound localization even for people with normal hearing. This article and study considered the question of whether unilateral, bilateral, or no cochlear implants are best for the purposes of localization.
The objective of the study detailed in the article is to determine the correct response rate of people with normal hearing, unilateral cochlear implants, and bilateral cochlear implants when asked to locate an auditory stimulus at varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). With this data, the researchers hoped to find differences in the data trends for the three different types of subjects in order to study and improve the overall experience of cochlear implant users. For details of the experiment and results, you can access the article via the “Cited Articles” section of this blog, or see the citation at the end of this post. In summary, all the findings suggest a need for improvement in cochlear implant insertion and design. As designs stand now, bilateral cochlear implants can still behave similarly to unilateral implants (in that settings can vary from ear to ear, rather than from pair to pair, depending on background noise and volume of target stimuli). This experiment suggests that cochlear implant designers should work to make the ears function more uniformly with implants in order to maintain the maximal amplification effects and also achieve better localization ability.
That’s all well and good, but it does not really answer the big question: why does it really matter? Why should anyone who does not want to devote his or her life to the study of cochlear implants care? Well for one thing, maybe the study of cochlear implants is a cause more worth considering than you first thought. Cochlear implants are relatively new technology and therefore have a great deal of room for improvement. Communication is vital to the human experience, and for many people, that means cochlear implants play an important role. Deaf people should have the right to choose speech or sign language depending on what works best for them, and for those who choose speech, they should have access to the best possible speech and hearing they can get. Therefore, it is important to continue efforts to study and experiment with amplification, localization, and processing of sound for cochlear implants. Maybe you can contribute to that.
Even if you still do not have any interest in this area of study and research, it still matters. It demonstrates the true complexity of the human sensation and perception experience. Many people think there are five simple senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste). Contrary to that line of thought, this study only deals with localization, which is one small aspect of what the auditory system does. Each sense works this way; it can be broken down again and again into smaller and smaller subcategories of processes and pathways. And if just one of those processes or pathways varied in each individual (which is generally the case), everyone would perceive the world slightly differently. So if all the science behind this seems uninteresting to you, consider this: if you were anyone other than yourself, your perception of the world wouldn’t be what it is. Studies like this help us get a sense of what your perception might be, if it were something different. If we can gather enough of this information, maybe we can bust out of the mentality that reality is merely what is seen and heard. We can leave relative truths and limited understanding behind and pursue objective truth. In the words of C.S. Lewis, we can “misunderstand a little less completely.” And it all starts with sound waves.
Kerber, S., & Seeber, B. U. (2012). Sound localization in noise by normal-hearing listeners and
cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 33(4), 445–457.
http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318257607b
The article “Sound localization in noise by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users” addresses the question of whether cochlear implant users can regain any abilities, besides hearing, that are associated with the ears. The main area of concern in this particular article is localization. Before this study, several experiments had been carried out which explored and discussed sound localization and cochlear implants in relation to one another. However, these experiments left out the factor of noise. Noise in the background affects sound localization even for people with normal hearing. This article and study considered the question of whether unilateral, bilateral, or no cochlear implants are best for the purposes of localization.
The objective of the study detailed in the article is to determine the correct response rate of people with normal hearing, unilateral cochlear implants, and bilateral cochlear implants when asked to locate an auditory stimulus at varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). With this data, the researchers hoped to find differences in the data trends for the three different types of subjects in order to study and improve the overall experience of cochlear implant users. For details of the experiment and results, you can access the article via the “Cited Articles” section of this blog, or see the citation at the end of this post. In summary, all the findings suggest a need for improvement in cochlear implant insertion and design. As designs stand now, bilateral cochlear implants can still behave similarly to unilateral implants (in that settings can vary from ear to ear, rather than from pair to pair, depending on background noise and volume of target stimuli). This experiment suggests that cochlear implant designers should work to make the ears function more uniformly with implants in order to maintain the maximal amplification effects and also achieve better localization ability.
That’s all well and good, but it does not really answer the big question: why does it really matter? Why should anyone who does not want to devote his or her life to the study of cochlear implants care? Well for one thing, maybe the study of cochlear implants is a cause more worth considering than you first thought. Cochlear implants are relatively new technology and therefore have a great deal of room for improvement. Communication is vital to the human experience, and for many people, that means cochlear implants play an important role. Deaf people should have the right to choose speech or sign language depending on what works best for them, and for those who choose speech, they should have access to the best possible speech and hearing they can get. Therefore, it is important to continue efforts to study and experiment with amplification, localization, and processing of sound for cochlear implants. Maybe you can contribute to that.
Even if you still do not have any interest in this area of study and research, it still matters. It demonstrates the true complexity of the human sensation and perception experience. Many people think there are five simple senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste). Contrary to that line of thought, this study only deals with localization, which is one small aspect of what the auditory system does. Each sense works this way; it can be broken down again and again into smaller and smaller subcategories of processes and pathways. And if just one of those processes or pathways varied in each individual (which is generally the case), everyone would perceive the world slightly differently. So if all the science behind this seems uninteresting to you, consider this: if you were anyone other than yourself, your perception of the world wouldn’t be what it is. Studies like this help us get a sense of what your perception might be, if it were something different. If we can gather enough of this information, maybe we can bust out of the mentality that reality is merely what is seen and heard. We can leave relative truths and limited understanding behind and pursue objective truth. In the words of C.S. Lewis, we can “misunderstand a little less completely.” And it all starts with sound waves.
Kerber, S., & Seeber, B. U. (2012). Sound localization in noise by normal-hearing listeners and
cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 33(4), 445–457.
http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318257607b
Comments
Post a Comment