ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychol.
Sec. Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience
Differences in Consonant Confusion Patterns Between Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users with Greater and Less Bimodal Advantage
Provisionally accepted
- Baylor University, Waco, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objectives The variability in bimodal advantage among bimodal users remains a significant challenge in clinical approaches. This study compared confusion patterns in consonant recognition between bimodal users who received greater bimodal advantage (GBA) and those who received less bimodal advantage (LBA), aiming to clarify these patterns in order to identify underlying causes that can help improve speech perception for all users. Methods Confusion matrices were measured monaurally and binaurally in both quiet and noisy conditions. Twenty-one subjects were divided into GBA (n=8) and LBA (n=13) groups using K-means clustering based on percentage points of bimodal advantage. Participants represented a diverse range of hearing experiences, ensuring the study's findings would apply to many bimodal users. Results By analyzing consonant confusion patterns, the study identifies distinct listening strategies that differentiate GBA and LBA groups. Spectral integration was observed on /ga/, /ma/, /fa/, /ʃa/, /va/, /za/, and /ʤa/ for the GBA group but only on /ga/ and /za/ for the LBA group. Spectral interference was observed on /na/ for the GBA group, but on /ba/, /da/, /pa/, /ta/, /ka/, /ma/, /sa/, and /ʤa/ for the LBA group. Cochlear implant (CI)-ear dominance occurred on /ba/, /da/, /pa/, /ta/, /ka/, and /sa/ for the GBA group and on /na/, /fa/, /ʃa/, and /va/ for the LBA group. Conclusion These findings suggest that individual differences in speech perception among bimodal users reflect how each individual combines input from both ears. Three distinct listening strategies emerged: spectral integration, spectral interference, and CI-ear dominance. Users with greater advantage were more successful at integrating complementary inputs across ears, while others experienced conflicting auditory inputs or mainly relied on their CI ear. These results highlight the importance of looking beyond overall speech scores and focusing on specific speech sound patterns to understand why some bimodal users benefit more than others. By identifying the roles of listening strategies in consonant perception, we can better explain individual variability and improve clinical approaches to hearing device fitting.
Keywords: Bimodal listening strategy, Spectral integration, Spectral interference, Eardominance, bimodal advantage
Received: 14 Jun 2025; Accepted: 20 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Yoon and Majidpour. 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: Yang-Soo Yoon, yang-soo_yoon@baylor.edu
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.