Cochlear implant users may lack cocktail-party processing benefits of the MOCR

Evidence

The potential benefits attributed here to the contralateral MOCR are unavailable to current CI users and this might explain part of their impaired performance understanding speech in challenging environments. The present results suggest that the MOC processor, or a version of it, might improve CI performance. The MOC strategy may also be adapted for use with bilateral hearing aids. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1939 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Cochlear implants allow selective deactivation of the MOCR in humans; Missing efferent benefits may explain cochlear-implant users’ speech-in-noise deficits — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1939; Cochlear-implant users show no sensitivity to inherent noise envelope fluctuations (+2 more)

Related

• Missing efferent benefits may explain cochlear-implant users’ speech-in-noise deficits (similarity 0.96)
• Lacking MOC gain control partly explains CI users’ poor speech-in-noise performance (similarity 0.92)
• Cochlear-implant users show no sensitivity to inherent noise envelope fluctuations (similarity 0.85)
• Cochlear implants enable experimental control of the olivocochlear reflex unavailable in normal hearing (similarity 0.83)
• Dynamic CI compression can selectively reinstate or remove contralateral efferent effects (similarity 0.83)
• MOCR speech-in-noise unmasking remains unproven because selective deactivation is impossible in humans (similarity 0.83)
• The MOCR may act as a cocktail-party processor via head-shadow-based gain control (similarity 0.82)
• Cochlear implant compression mimics cochlear mechanics and can test efferent function (similarity 0.81)
• The MOCR’s unmasking role remains unproven in direct human experiments (similarity 0.81)
• A contralateral-efferent-inspired coding strategy enhances sound-source segregation for cochlear implant listeners (similarity 0.81)
• Cochlear device users benefit less from electrode deactivation than AB and MEDEL users (similarity 0.80)
• The MOCR reduces channel compression when the opposite ear’s output rises (similarity 0.79)
• The medial olivocochlear reflex inhibits cochlear compression contralaterally in a graded, output-dependent manner (similarity 0.78)
• Cochlear implants give good speech recognition in quiet but poor performance in noise (similarity 0.78)
• Medial olivocochlear reflex inhibition varies by cochlear location (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Missing efferent benefits may explain cochlear-implant users’ speech-in-noise deficits #expands (0.85) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1939
• Lacking MOC gain control partly explains CI users’ poor speech-in-noise performance #responds-to (0.85)
• Dynamic compression in cochlear implants can reinstate MOC reflex effects #responds-to (0.80)
• Cochlear-implant users show no sensitivity to inherent noise envelope fluctuations #complicates (0.72)