Clinical Application of Spectral Modulation Detection: Speech Recognition Benefit for Combining a Cochlear Implant and Contralateral Hearing Aid

Evaluating Listening Effort in Unilateral, Bimodal, and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate listening effort (LE) in unilateral, bilateral, and bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. Establish an easy-to-implement task of LE that could be useful for clinical decision making.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary neurotology center.

METHODS

The Sentence Final Word Identification and Recall Task, an established measure of LE, was modified to include challenging listening conditions (multitalker babble, gender, and emotional variation; test), in addition to single-talker sentences (control). Participants listened to lists of sentences in each condition and recalled the last word of each sentence. LE was quantified by percentage of words correctly recalled and was compared across conditions, across CI groups, and within subjects (best aided vs monaural).

RESULTS

A total of 24 adults between the ages of 37 and 82 years enrolled, including 4 unilateral CI users (CI), 10 bilateral CI users (CICI), and 10 bimodal CI users (CIHA). Task condition impacted LE (P < .001), but hearing configuration and listener group did not (P = .90). Working memory capacity and contralateral hearing contributed to individual performance.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the growing body of literature on LE in challenging listening conditions for CI users and demonstrates feasibility of a simple behavioral task that could be implemented clinically to assess LE. This study also highlights the potential benefits of bimodal hearing and individual hearing and cognitive factors in understanding individual differences in performance, which will be evaluated through further research.

Benefits of Bimodal Stimulation to Speech Perception in Noise and Silence

Introduction  Understanding all the benefits of bimodality with self-assessment questionnaires on the effect of hearing on quality of life is still necessary. Objective  To present whether bimodality still offers hearing benefits to the population who uses acoustic stimulation associated with electrical stimulation. Methods  The present study included 13 participants aged between 16 and 80 years old who were users of cochlear implants from Cochlear Corporation and hearing aids. All patients underwent the Hearing in Noise Test, and their visual analog scale score was obtained. Four-tone means were collected, and the participants answered the Speech, Spatial and Hearing Qualities questionnaire. Results  Bimodal users had an average sentence recognition rate of 76.0% in silence and 67.6% in fixed noise, and the signal-to-noise ratio in adaptive noise was +2.89dB. In addition, a lower level of difficulty was observed in the test using the visual analog scale. The domain with the highest average was auditory qualities (6.50), followed by spatial hearing (6.26) and hearing for speech (5.81). Individuals with an average between 50 and 70 dB of hearing level showed better sentence recognition in silence and noise. Conclusion  Bimodal stimulation showed benefits for users with different degrees of hearing loss; however, individuals who presented greater hearing residue had better performance in speech recognition with noise and in silence in addition to a good perception of hearing quality.

Objective discrimination of bimodal speech using frequency following responses

Bimodal hearing, in which a contralateral hearing aid is combined with a cochlear implant (CI), provides greater speech recognition benefits than using a CI alone. Factors predicting individual bimodal patient success are not fully understood. Previous studies have shown that bimodal benefits may be driven by a patient's ability to extract fundamental frequency (f0) and/or temporal fine structure cues (e.g., F1). Both of these features may be represented in frequency following responses (FFR) to bimodal speech. Thus, the goals of this study were to: 1) parametrically examine neural encoding of f0 and F1 in simulated bimodal speech conditions; 2) examine objective discrimination of FFRs to bimodal speech conditions using machine learning; 3) explore whether FFRs are predictive of perceptual bimodal benefit. Three vowels (/ε/, /i/, and /ʊ/) with identical f0 were manipulated by a vocoder (right ear) and low-pass filters (left ear) to create five bimodal simulations for evoking FFRs: Vocoder-only, Vocoder +125 Hz, Vocoder +250 Hz, Vocoder +500 Hz, and Vocoder +750 Hz. Perceptual performance on the BKB-SIN test was also measured using the same five configurations. Results suggested that neural representation of f0 and F1 FFR components were enhanced with increasing acoustic bandwidth in the simulated "non-implanted" ear. As spectral differences between vowels emerged in the FFRs with increased acoustic bandwidth, FFRs were more accurately classified and discriminated using a machine learning algorithm. Enhancement of f0 and F1 neural encoding with increasing bandwidth were collectively predictive of perceptual bimodal benefit on a speech-in-noise task. Given these results, FFR may be a useful tool to objectively assess individual variability in bimodal hearing.

Integration of fundamental frequency and voice-onset-time to voicing categorization: Listeners with normal hearing and bimodal hearing configurations

This study investigates the integration of word-initial fundamental frequency (F0) and voice-onset-time (VOT) in stop voicing categorization for adult listeners with normal hearing (NH) and unilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients utilizing a bimodal hearing configuration [CI + contralateral hearing aid (HA)]. Categorization was assessed for ten adults with NH and ten adult bimodal listeners, using synthesized consonant stimuli interpolating between /ba/ and /pa/ exemplars with five-step VOT and F0 conditions. All participants demonstrated the expected categorization pattern by reporting /ba/ for shorter VOTs and /pa/ for longer VOTs, with NH listeners showing more use of VOT as a voicing cue than CI listeners in general. When VOT becomes ambiguous between voiced and voiceless stops, NH users make more use of F0 as a cue to voicing than CI listeners, and CI listeners showed greater utilization of initial F0 during voicing identification in their bimodal (CI + HA) condition than in the CI-alone condition. The results demonstrate the adjunctive benefit of acoustic hearing from the non-implanted ear for listening conditions involving spectrotemporally complex stimuli. This finding may lead to the development of a clinically feasible perceptual weighting task that could inform clinicians about bimodal efficacy and the risk-benefit profile associated with bilateral CI recommendation.

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.

Bilateral Cochlear Implants or Bimodal Hearing for Children with Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Purpose of review

This review describes speech perception and language outcomes for children using bimodal hearing (cochlear implant (CI) plus contralateral hearing aid) as compared to children with bilateral CIs and contrasts said findings with the adult literature. There is a lack of clinical evidence driving recommendations for bimodal versus bilateral CI candidacy and as such, clinicians are often unsure about when to recommend a second CI for children with residual acoustic hearing. Thus the goal of this review is to identify scientific information that may influence clinical decision making for pediatric CI candidates with residual acoustic hearing.

Recent findings

Bilateral CIs are considered standard of care for children with bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. For children with aidable acoustic hearing-even in just the low frequencies-an early period of bimodal stimulation has been associated with significantly better speech perception, vocabulary, and language development. HA audibility, however, is generally poorer than that offered by a CI resulting in interaural asymmetry in speech perception, head shadow, as well as brainstem and cortical activity and development. Thus there is a need to optimize "two-eared" hearing while maximizing a child's potential with respect to hearing, speech, and language while ensuring that we limit asymmetrically driven auditory neuroplasticity. A recent large study of bimodal and bilateral CI users suggested that a period of bimodal stimulation was only beneficial for children with a better-ear pure tone average (PTA) ≤ 73 dB HL. This 73-dB-HL cutoff applied even to children who ultimately received bilateral CIs.

Summary

Though we do not yet have definitive guidelines for determining bimodal versus bilateral CI candidacy, there is increasing evidence that 1) bilateral CIs yield superior outcomes for children with bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss and, 2) an early period of bimodal stimulation is beneficial for speech perception and language development, but only for children with better-ear PTA ≤ 73 dB HL. For children with residual acoustic hearing, even in just the low-frequency range, rapid sequential bilateral cochlear implantation following a trial period with bimodal stimulation will yield best outcomes for auditory, language, and academic development. Of course, there is also an increasing prevalence of cochlear implantation with acoustic hearing preservation allowing for combined electric and acoustic stimulation even following bilateral implantation.

Examining the Relationship Between Speech Recognition and a Spectral-Temporal Test With a Mixed Group of Hearing Aid and Cochlear Implant Users

Purpose Audiology clinics have a need for a nonlinguistic test for assessing speech scores for patients using hearing aids or cochlear implants. One such test, the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test Lite for computeRless Measurement (SLRM), has been developed for use in clinics, but it, as well as the related Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test, has primarily been assessed with cochlear implant users. The main goal of this study was to examine the relationship between SLRM and the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test (AzBio) for a mixed group of hearing aid and cochlear implant users. Method Adult hearing aid users and cochlear implant users were tested with SLRM, AzBio in quiet, and AzBio in multitalker babble with a +8 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Results SLRM scores correlated with both AzBio recognition scores in quiet and in noise. Conclusions The results indicated that there is a significant relationship between SLRM and AzBio scores when testing a mixed group of cochlear implant and hearing aid users. This suggests that SLRM may be a useful nonlinguistic test for use with individuals with a variety of hearing devices.