Ranking hearing aid input-output functions for understanding low-, conversational-, and high-level speech in multitalker babble

Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults Using Bimodal Hearing Configurations

Clinics are treating a growing number of patients with greater amounts of residual hearing. These patients often benefit from a bimodal hearing configuration in which acoustic input from a hearing aid on 1 ear is combined with electrical stimulation from a cochlear implant on the other ear. The current guidelines aim to review the literature and provide best practice recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of individuals with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who may benefit from bimodal hearing configurations. Specifically, the guidelines review: benefits of bimodal listening, preoperative and postoperative cochlear implant evaluation and programming, bimodal hearing aid fitting, contralateral routing of signal considerations, bimodal treatment for tinnitus, and aural rehabilitation recommendations.

Current Profile of Adults Presenting for Preoperative Cochlear Implant Evaluation

Considerable advancements in cochlear implant technology (e.g., electric acoustic stimulation) and assessment materials have yielded expanded criteria. Despite this, it is unclear whether individuals with better audiometric thresholds and speech understanding are being referred for cochlear implant workup and pursuing cochlear implantation. The purpose of this study was to characterize the mean auditory and demographic profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant workup. Data were collected prospectively for all adult preoperative workups at Vanderbilt from 2013 to 2015. Subjects included 287 adults (253 postlingually deafened) with a mean age of 62.3 years. Each individual was assessed using the minimum speech test battery, spectral modulation detection, subjective questionnaires, and cognitive screening. Mean consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores, AzBio sentence scores, and pure-tone averages for postlingually deafened adults were 10%, 13%, and 89 dB HL, respectively, for the ear to be implanted. Seventy-three individuals (25.4%) met labeled indications for Hybrid-L and 207 individuals (72.1%) had aidable hearing in the better hearing ear to be used in a bimodal hearing configuration. These results suggest that mean speech understanding evaluated at cochlear implant workup remains very low despite recent advancements. Greater awareness and insurance accessibility may be needed to make cochlear implant technology available to those who qualify for electric acoustic stimulation devices as well as individuals meeting conventional cochlear implant criteria.

Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of electric and acoustic overlap for speech understanding in typical listening conditions using semidiffuse noise.

DESIGN

This study used a within-subjects, repeated measures design including 11 experienced adult implant recipients (13 ears) with functional residual hearing in the implanted and nonimplanted ear. The aided acoustic bandwidth was fixed and the low-frequency cutoff for the cochlear implant (CI) was varied systematically. Assessments were completed in the R-SPACE sound-simulation system which includes a semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from eight loudspeakers placed circumferentially about the subject's head. AzBio sentences were presented at 67 dBA with signal to noise ratio varying between +10 and 0 dB determined individually to yield approximately 50 to 60% correct for the CI-alone condition with full CI bandwidth. Listening conditions for all subjects included CI alone, bimodal (CI + contralateral hearing aid), and bilateral-aided electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS; CI + bilateral hearing aid). Low-frequency cutoffs both below and above the original "clinical software recommendation" frequency were tested for all patients, in all conditions. Subjects estimated listening difficulty for all conditions using listener ratings based on a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Three primary findings were that (1) there was statistically significant benefit of preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear for most overlap conditions, (2) the default clinical software recommendation rarely yielded the highest level of speech recognition (1 of 13 ears), and (3) greater EAS overlap than that provided by the clinical recommendation yielded significant improvements in speech understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

For standard-electrode CI recipients with preserved hearing, spectral overlap of acoustic and electric stimuli yielded significantly better speech understanding and less listening effort in a laboratory-based, restaurant-noise simulation. In conclusion, EAS patients may derive more benefit from greater acoustic and electric overlap than given in current software fitting recommendations, which are based solely on audiometric threshold. These data have larger scientific implications, as previous studies may not have assessed outcomes with optimized EAS parameters, thereby underestimating the benefit afforded by hearing preservation.

Effects of in-the-ear microphone directionality on sound direction identification

As advanced signal processing algorithms have been proposed to enhance hearing protective device (HPD) performance, it is important to determine how directional microphones might affect the localization ability of users and whether they might cause safety hazards. The effect of in-the-ear microphone directivity was assessed by measuring sound source identification of speech in the horizontal plane. Recordings of speech in quiet and in noise were made with Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research wearing bilateral in-the-ear hearing aids with microphones having adjustable directivity (omnidirectional, cardioid, hypercardioid, supercardioid). Signals were generated from 16 locations in a circular array. Sound direction identification performance of eight normal hearing listeners and eight hearing-impaired listeners revealed that directional microphones did not degrade localization performance and actually reduced the front-back and lateral localization errors made when listening through omnidirectional microphones. The summed rms speech level for the signals entering the two ears appear to serve as a cue for making front-back discriminations when using directional microphones in the experimental setting. The results of this study show that the use of matched directional microphones when worn bilaterally do not have a negative effect on the ability to localize speech in the horizontal plane and may thus be useful in HPD design.