Sprachverstehen mit elektrisch-akustischer Stimulation: Vergleich mit bilateral versorgten Cochleaimplantatträgern in verschiedenen Störgeräuschumgebungen

Speech perception in modulated noise assessed in bimodal CI users

BACKGROUND

Although good speech perception in quiet is achievable with cochlear implants (CIs), speech perception in noise is severely impaired compared to normal hearing (NH). In the case of a bimodal CI fitting with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear, the amount of residual acoustic hearing influences speech perception in noise.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to investigate speech perception in noise in a group of bimodal CI users and compare the results to age-matched HA users and people without subjective hearing loss, as well as with a young NH group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study participants comprised 19 bimodal CI users, 39 HA users, and 40 subjectively NH subjects in the age group 60-90 years and 14 young NH subjects. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise were adaptively measured using the Oldenburg Sentence Test for the two spatial test conditions S0N0 (speech and noise from the front) and multisource-noise field (MSNF; speech from the front, four spatially distributed noise sources) in continuous noise of the Oldenburg Sentence Test (Ol-noise) and amplitude-modulated Fastl noise (Fastl-noise).

RESULTS

With increasing hearing loss, the median SRT worsened significantly in all conditions. In test condition S0N0, the SRT of the CI group was 5.6 dB worse in Ol-noise than in the young NH group (mean age 26.4 years) and 22.5 dB worse in Fastl-noise; in MSNF, the differences were 6.6 dB (Ol-noise) and 17.3 dB (Fastl-noise), respectively. In the young NH group, median SRT in condition S0N0 improved by 11 dB due to gap listening; in the older NH group, SRTs improved by only 3.1 dB. In the HA and bimodal CI groups there was no gap listening effect and SRTs in Fastl-noise were even worse than in Ol-noise.

CONCLUSION

With increasing hearing loss, speech perception in modulated noise is even more impaired than in continuous noise.

Residual low-frequency hearing after early device activation in cochlear implantation

PURPOSE

The cochlear implant (CI) is a standard treatment for patients with severe to profound hearing loss. In recent years, early device activation of the sound processor after 2-3 days following surgery has been established. The aim of this study is to evaluate the residual hearing of CI patients with substantial preoperative low-frequency hearing after early device activation over a period of 12 months.

METHODS

Results were compared between an early fitted group (EF) with device activation to less than 15 days after CI surgery and a control group (CG) with device activation after 3-6 weeks. In total, 57 patients were divided into EF group (n = 32), and CG (n = 25). Low-frequency residual hearing and speech recognition in quiet and in noise were compared over an observation period of 12 months.

RESULTS

No significant difference (p > 0.05) in the residual low-frequency hearing PTAlow between EF and CG was found, neither preoperatively (EF 33.2 dB HL/CG 35.0 dB HL), nor postoperatively (EF 46.8 dB HL/CG 46.2 dB HL). In both groups, postoperative residual hearing decreased compared to preoperative and remained stable within the first year after CI surgery. Furthermore, both groups showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in speech recognition in quiet and in noise within the first year.

CONCLUSION

Early device activation is feasible in CI patients with preoperative low-frequency residual hearing, without an additional effect on postoperative hearing preservation.

[Speech perception in modulated noise assessed in bimodal CI users-German version]

BACKGROUND

Although good speech perception in quiet is achievable with cochlear implants (CIs), speech perception in noise is severely impaired compared to normal hearing (NH). In the case of a bimodal CI fitting with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear, the amount of residual acoustic hearing influences speech perception in noise.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to investigate speech perception in noise in a group of bimodal CI users and compare the results to age-matched HA users and people without subjective hearing loss, as well as with a young NH group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study participants comprised 19 bimodal CI users, 39 HA users, and 40 subjectively NH subjects in the age group 60-90 years and 14 young NH subjects. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise were adaptively measured using the Oldenburg Sentence Test for the two spatial test conditions S0N0 (speech and noise from the front) and multisource-noise field (MSNF; speech from the front, four spatially distributed noise sources) in continuous noise of the Oldenburg Sentence Test (Ol-noise) and amplitude-modulated Fastl noise (Fastl-noise).

RESULTS

With increasing hearing loss, the median SRT worsened significantly in all conditions. In test condition S0N0, the SRT of the CI group was 5.6 dB worse in Ol-noise than in the young NH group (mean age 26.4 years) and 22.5 dB worse in Fastl-noise; in MSNF, the differences were 6.6 dB (Ol-noise) and 17.3 dB (Fastl-noise), respectively. In the young NH group, median SRT in condition S0N0 improved by 11 dB due to gap listening; in the older NH group, SRTs improved by only 3.1 dB. In the HA and bimodal CI groups there was no gap listening effect and SRTs in Fastl-noise were even worse than in Ol-noise.

CONCLUSION

With increasing hearing loss, speech perception in modulated noise is even more impaired than in continuous noise.

Sensitivity to interaural time differences and localization accuracy in cochlear implant users with combined electric-acoustic stimulation

OBJECTIVES

In this study, localization accuracy and sensitivity to acoustic interaural time differences (ITDs) in subjects using cochlear implants with combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) were assessed and compared with the results of a normal hearing control group.

METHODS

Eight CI users with EAS (2 bilaterally implanted, 6 unilaterally implanted) and symmetric binaural acoustic hearing and 24 normal hearing subjects participated in the study. The first experiment determined mean localization error (MLE) for different angles of sound incidence between ± 60° (frontal and dorsal presentation). The stimuli were either low-pass, high-pass or broadband noise bursts. In a second experiment, just noticeable differences (JND) of ITDs were measured for pure tones of 125 Hz, 250 Hz and 500 Hz (headphone presentation).

RESULTS

Experiment 1: MLE of EAS subjects was 8.5°, 14.3° and 14.7°, (low-, high-pass and broadband stimuli respectively). In the control group, MLE was 1.8° (broadband stimuli). In the differentiation between sound incidence from front and back, EAS subjects performed on chance level. Experiment 2: The JND-ITDs were 88.7 μs for 125 Hz, 48.8 μs for 250 Hz and 52.9 μs for 500 Hz (EAS subjects). Compared to the control group, JND-ITD for 125 Hz was on the same level of performance. No statistically significant correlation was found between MLE and JND-ITD in the EAS cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Near to normal ITD sensitivity in the lower frequency acoustic hearing was demonstrated in a cohort of EAS users. However, in an acoustic localization task, the majority of the subjects did not reached the level of accuracy of normal hearing. Presumably, signal processing time delay differences between devices used on both sides are deteriorating the transfer of precise binaural timing cues.

Hearing preservation in children with electric-acoustic stimulation after cochlear implantation : Outcome after electrode insertion with minimal insertion trauma

Background

Cochlear implantation in patients with functional residual low-frequency hearing is performed according to an established hearing-preserving surgical technique in order to cause minimal trauma of inner ear structures. Due to the increasing number of cochlear implants in children, the preservation of residual hearing is becoming increasingly important in this patient collective.

Objectives

Short- and mid-term hearing preservation outcome in pediatric patients is investigated.

Materials and methods

A group of 9 children (12 ears) between 5 and 12 years of age were examined after hearing-assisted cochlear implantation with respect to the pure tone audiometric thresholds. Retrospectively, short-term hearing preservation (up to 3 months after surgery) was examined. In a subgroup of 5 children, mid-term hearing preservation (7.5 to 16 months after surgery) was also analyzed. The mean values of hearing preserved (HL%) and hearing loss (HL) due to electrode insertion were calculated as measured values.

Results

In the whole group, the mean values of the preoperative PTA_low were 29.8 dB and the short-term postoperative PTA_low 42.6 dB. The mean value of the HL% was 73.6%, corresponding to an HL of 9.4 dB. In the subgroup, the mean PTA_low postoperatively was 46.0 dB in the mid-term and the HL% at 80.7% with a HL of 6.6 dB.

Conclusions

The results in children are consistent with the results in adults. Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) should be used in the treatment of children with existing low-frequency residual hearing, as good residual hearing preservation can also be achieved in children after implantation.

[Hearing preservation in children with electric-acoustic stimulation after cochlear implantation : Outcome after electrode insertion with minimal insertion trauma (German version)]

BACKGROUND

Cochlear implantation in patients with functional residual low-frequency hearing is performed according to an established hearing-preserving surgical technique in order to cause minimal trauma of inner ear structures. Due to the increasing number of cochlear implants in children, the preservation of residual hearing is becoming increasingly important in this patient collective.

OBJECTIVES

Short- and mid-term hearing preservation outcome in pediatric patients is investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A group of 9 children (12 ears) between 5 and 12 years of age were examined after hearing-assisted cochlear implantation with respect to the pure tone audiometric thresholds. Retrospectively, short-term hearing preservation (up to 3 months after surgery) was examined. In a subgroup of 5 children, mid-term hearing preservation (7.5 to 16 months after surgery) was also analyzed. The mean values of hearing preserved (HL%) and hearing loss (HL) due to electrode insertion were calculated as measured values.

RESULTS

In the whole group, the mean values of the preoperative PTA_low were 29.8 dB and the short-term postoperative PTA_low 42.6 dB. The mean value of the HL% was 73.6%, corresponding to an HL of 9.4 dB. In the subgroup, the mean PTA_low postoperatively was 46.0 dB in the mid-term and the HL% at 80.7% with a HL of 6.6 dB.

CONCLUSIONS

The results in children are consistent with the results in adults. Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) should be used in the treatment of children with existing low-frequency residual hearing, as good residual hearing preservation can also be achieved in children after implantation.