The effect of auditory experience on speech perception, localization, and functional performance of children who use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears

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.

Cerebral Representation of Sound Localization Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Sound localization is an essential part of auditory processing. However, the cortical representation of identifying the direction of sound sources presented in the sound field using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is currently unknown. Therefore, in this study, we used fNIRS to investigate the cerebral representation of different sound sources. Twenty-five normal-hearing subjects (aged 26 ± 2.7, male 11, female 14) were included and actively took part in a block design task. The test setup for sound localization was composed of a seven-speaker array spanning a horizontal arc of 180° in front of the participants. Pink noise bursts with two intensity levels (48 dB/58 dB) were randomly applied via five loudspeakers (–90°/–30°/–0°/+30°/+90°). Sound localization task performances were collected, and simultaneous signals from auditory processing cortical fields were recorded for analysis by using a support vector machine (SVM). The results showed a classification accuracy of 73.60, 75.60, and 77.40% on average at –90°/0°, 0°/+90°, and –90°/+90° with high intensity, and 70.60, 73.6, and 78.6% with low intensity. The increase of oxyhemoglobin was observed in the bilateral non-primary auditory cortex (AC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). In conclusion, the oxyhemoglobin (oxy-Hb) response showed different neural activity patterns between the lateral and front sources in the AC and dlPFC. Our results may serve as a basic contribution for further research on the use of fNIRS in spatial auditory studies.

Remote Microphone Systems Can Improve Listening-in-Noise Accuracy and Listening Effort for Youth With Autism

OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether remote microphone (RM) systems improved listening-in-noise performance in youth with autism. We explored effects of RM system use on both listening-in-noise accuracy and listening effort in a well-characterized sample of participants with autism. We hypothesized that listening-in-noise accuracy would be enhanced and listening effort reduced, on average, when participants used the RM system. Furthermore, we predicted that effects of RM system use on listening-in-noise accuracy and listening effort would vary according to participant characteristics. Specifically, we hypothesized that participants who were chronologically older, had greater nonverbal cognitive and language ability, displayed fewer features of autism, and presented with more typical sensory and multisensory profiles might exhibit greater benefits of RM system use than participants who were younger, had less nonverbal cognitive or language ability, displayed more features of autism, and presented with greater sensory and multisensory disruptions.

DESIGN

We implemented a within-subjects design to investigate our hypotheses, wherein 32 youth with autism completed listening-in-noise testing with and without an RM system. Listening-in-noise accuracy and listening effort were evaluated simultaneously using a dual-task paradigm for stimuli varying in complexity (i.e., syllable-, word-, sentence-, and passage-level). In addition, several putative moderators of RM system effects (i.e., sensory and multisensory function, language, nonverbal cognition, and broader features of autism) on outcomes of interest were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, RM system use resulted in higher listening-in-noise accuracy in youth with autism compared with no RM system use. The observed benefits were all large in magnitude, although the benefits on average were greater for more complex stimuli (e.g., key words embedded in sentences) and relatively smaller for less complex stimuli (e.g., syllables). Notably, none of the putative moderators significantly influenced the effects of the RM system on listening-in-noise accuracy, indicating that RM system benefits did not vary according to any of the participant characteristics assessed. On average, RM system use did not have an effect on listening effort across all youth with autism compared with no RM system use but instead yielded effects that varied according to participant profile. Specifically, moderated effects indicated that RM system use was associated with increased listening effort for youth who had (a) average to below-average nonverbal cognitive ability, (b) below-average language ability, and (c) reduced audiovisual integration. RM system use was also associated with decreased listening effort for youth with very high nonverbal cognitive ability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study extends prior work by showing that RM systems have the potential to boost listening-in-noise accuracy for youth with autism. However, this boost in accuracy was coupled with increased listening effort, as indexed by longer reaction times while using an RM system, for some youth with autism, perhaps suggesting greater engagement in the listening-in-noise tasks when using the RM system for youth who had lower cognitive abilities, were less linguistically able, and/or have difficulty integrating seen and heard speech. These findings have important implications for clinical practice, suggesting RM system use in classrooms could potentially improve listening-in-noise performance for some youth with autism.

Systematic review of cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetrical hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Rapid advances in cochlear implantation has witnessed an expanding spectrum for candidacy worldwide. This includes a subgroup of adults with asymmetrical hearing loss who have a wide range in their hearing capacity between the two ears. As per guidelines they are not included in mainstream candidacy for CI across the world. Evidence is now emerging to support the benefits of CI in AHL.

METHODS

This review analyzed literature regarding the outcomes of CI in AHL. Primary outcome measure was to assess audiological benefits and secondary outcome measure was to assess hearing related quality of life. 15 relevant articles, published worldwide between 2009 and 2019 were chosen. CASP checklist for systematic reviews was used to ascertain the quality of literature. The strength of recommendations from each study was analyzed and classified as strong, moderate, weak or none based on GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Heterogeneity in samples was obvious and samples varied largely between the studies. The levels of evidence ranged from systematic review to expert opinion, but overall they reflected positively on both audiological and QOL benefits.

CONCLUSION

CI provides important auditory and QOL benefits in AHL, but there is no high level evidence as yet to strongly support CI for AHL. A long term multi-centric study is necessary to influence a change in practice for a growing population of AHL.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03052920.

Bimodal Stimulation in Children With Bilateral Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Suitable Intervention Model for Children at the Early Developmental Stage

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the auditory and speech benefit of bimodal stimulation for prelingual deafened cochlear implantation recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective and comparative study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Fifty-six children with bilateral prelingual profound sensorineural hearing loss were enrolled, including 28 consecutive children with unilateral cochlear implantation (CI group), and 28 consecutive children with bimodal stimulation (BI group) who used an additional hearing aid (HA) in the contralateral ear.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hearing assessments included the Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS) and Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP). Speech evaluations included the Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS), and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR). These measurements were evaluated at the first mapping of cochlear implants and 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months after. Data were analyzed by repeated measures analysis.

RESULTS

The mean ages of BI and CI groups were similar (17.6 ± 6.87 vs 19.0 ± 8.10 months, p = 0.497). The initial scores for hearing and speech assessments showed no differences between the two groups, apart from IT-MAIS (2.46 ± 0.631 in BI group vs 0.50 ± 0.279 in CI group, p = 0.004). The auditory and speech development over time were different in the two groups as seen in IT-MAIS (p < 0.001), CAP (p = 0.029), MUSS (p < 0.001), and SIR (p < 0.001). A continuing but stable difference was observed in CAP, MUSS, and SIR at 3, 18, and 12 months after the first mapping, respectively. In addition, the BI group had better IT-MAIS scores at 3 and 6 months compared with the CI group; however, the difference was not significant after 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Bimodal stimulation is beneficial for prelingually deafened CI recipients who have minimal contralateral residual hearing when bilateral CIs are not available. Hearing aid use in the contralateral ear might be recommended for children after unilateral cochlear implantation to facilitate the development of auditory and speech skills.

Spatial Release From Masking in Bimodal and Bilateral Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

Purpose Traditional clinical measures of cochlear implant (CI) recipient performance may not fully evaluate the benefit of bimodal listening (hearing aid contralateral to a CI). The clinical assessment of spatial release from masking (SRM) may be a sensitive measure of the benefit of listening with bimodal stimulation. This study compared the SRM of pediatric bimodal and bilateral CI listeners using a clinically feasible method, and investigated variables that may contribute to speech recognition performance with spatially separated maskers. Method Forty pediatric bimodal (N = 20) and bilateral CI (N = 20) participants were assessed in their best aided listening condition on sentence recognition in a four-talker masker. Testing was completed with target and masker colocated at 0° azimuth, and with the masker directed at 90° to either ear. SRM was calculated as the difference in performance between the colocated and each 90° condition. A two-way mixed-methods analysis of variance was used to compare performance between groups in the three masker conditions. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate potential predictors for SRM asymmetry including hearing history, unaided thresholds, word recognition, duration of device use, and acoustic bandwidth. Results Both groups demonstrated SRM, with significantly better recognition in each 90° condition as compared to the colocated condition. The groups did not differ significantly in SRM. The multiple regression analyses did not reveal any significant predictors of SRM asymmetry. Conclusions Bimodal and bilateral CI listeners demonstrated similar amounts of SRM. While no specific variables predicted SRM asymmetry in bimodal listeners, pediatric bimodal and bilateral CI recipients should expect similar amounts of SRM regardless of the side of the masker. SRM asymmetry in pediatric bimodal listeners may signal a need for consideration of a second CI.

Remote Microphone System Use in Preschool Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Disorder in the Classroom: A Pilot Efficacy Study

Purpose The present pilot study aimed to provide estimates of the feasibility and efficacy of a remote microphone (RM) system as an augmentative intervention to improve the functional listening performance of preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and language disorder. Method Eight children with ASD and language disorder participated. Efficacy of the RM system was determined by evaluating participants' functional listening performance, as measured by an observational measure in RM-off and RM-on conditions. Responses were evaluated at the individual level using an alternating conditions design. Results Adequate feasibility was demonstrated as all participants were able to complete tasks in the RM-on condition. A subset of participants showed significant improvements in their functional listening performance in the RM-on condition, as demonstrated by visual inspection and effect sizes (nonoverlapping data points and percentage of data points exceeding the mean), indicating that there may be important sources of individual differences in responses to RM use in children with ASD. Conclusion The results of this pilot study provide support for future research on RM systems to target functional listening performance in children with ASD and language disorder.

Can Pitch Mismatch Be Diagnosed in Children Who Use Electric-Acoustic Stimulation?

Introduction

Pitch mismatch is one of the most important problems of users of bimodal cochlear implants, which affects their life satisfaction. Children with acquired hearing loss cannot explain their pitch mismatch problems, as they have had no auditory experience. This study tries to diagnose pitch mismatch in these children through the sound-induced flash illusion test.

Materials and methods

In this study, 20 children with a bimodal cochlear implant and 20 children with normal hearing, within the age range of 8 to 13 years old, were examined using the sound-induced flash illusion test. In this test, participants received one flash with one to four beep sounds, and they were asked to indicate the number of perceived flashes.

Results

The results revealed that in the bimodal implantation group, when the flash was provided with one beep, at certain frequencies, children expressed that they saw two flashes. However, the results were not the same in children with normal hearing.

Conclusion

The results indicated that at frequencies where the auditory information of the hearing aids and those of the cochlear implants overlap, pitch mismatch develops, which can significantly affect the auditory performance of bimodal users.

Binaural hearing advantages for children with bimodal fitting

OBJECTIVES

Bimodal fitting (BF) allows children with cochlear implant to benefit from binaural hearing advantages. Three major binaural hearing advantages, which enhance hearing function of people with normal hearing, are head shadow effect (HSE), binaural squelch effect (BSQ) and binaural summation effect (BSU). This study in pediatric patients attempting to measure the auditory benefits of bimodal stimulation in children with long-standing use of a cochlear implant (CI), and residual hearing on the contralateral side.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study investigated binaural advantages in 24 children of 8-12 years who had undergone cochlear implantation in a cochlear implant center in Tehran and continuously used BF. Improved score of speech perception in noise (SPiN) under BF condition, as compared to the application of cochlear implant alone, was a binaural advantage found in this study. Each binaural advantage was measured by obtaining the SPiN score under different listening and noise conditions, using relevant formulas. The measured value of each advantage reflects the improved score of SPiN, caused by that certain advantage.

RESULTS

In this study, improved mean SPiN score caused by the HSE, BSQ and BSU was, respectively, 3.13, 1.42 and 2.04 dB, indicating greater binaural advantages and hence improved SPiN, under BF condition in comparison with cochlear implant alone.

CONCLUSION

Children with unilateral cochlear implant and measurable residual hearing in non-implanted ear can benefit from binaural advantages and better SPiN when hearing aid is used in the unaided ear.

How to Optimally Fit a Hearing Aid for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Bimodal hearing has shown to improve speech recognition in quiet and in noise and to improve sound localization compared with unilateral cochlear implant (CI) use alone. Fitting the CI and hearing aid (HA) separately has been described well, but HA fitting procedures for bimodal CI users are not well researched or widely accepted. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of different HA fitting strategies on auditory performance in bimodal CI users.

DESIGN

Original articles, written in English, were identified through systematic searches in Medline (OvidSP), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed publisher, and Google Scholar. The quality of the studies was assessed on five aspects: methodologic quality (with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies score), number of subjects, quality of the description of contralateral hearing loss, quality of HA verification, and direct comparison of HA fitting procedures based on auditory performance.

RESULTS

A total of 1665 records were retrieved, of which 17 were included for systematical reviews. Critical appraisal led to three high-quality studies, 10 medium-quality studies, and four low-quality studies. The results of the studies were structured according to four topics: frequency response, frequency translation/transposition, dynamic range compression, and loudness. In general, a bimodal benefit was found in most studies, using various strategies for the HA fitting. Using a standard prescription rule such as National Acoustics Laboratory formula-non-linear 1, National Acoustics Laboratory formula-non-linear 2, or desired sensation level is a good starting point in children and adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a bimodal benefit was found in most studies, there is no clear evidence how certain choices in HA fitting contribute to optimal bimodal performance. A generally accepted HA prescription rule is an essential part of most fitting procedures used in the studies. Current evidence suggests that frequency lowering or transposition is not beneficial. Individual fine tuning based on loudness or general preference is often applied, but its additional value for auditory performance should be investigated more thoroughly. Good quality comparative studies are needed to further develop evidence-based fitting procedures in case of bimodal listening.

Early Speech Perception Test Outcome in Children with Severe Sensorineural Hearing Loss with Unilateral Cochlear Implants Alone versus Bimodal Stimulation

Bilateral stimulation of the auditory system has clear advantages over unilateral hearing. Hearing-impaired children are, therefore, generally fitted with hearing aids in both ears so that they can have the benefits of binaural hearing. Children who use acochlear implant in one ear and no acoustic stimulation in the opposite ear are at a definite disadvantage. This study was undertaken to determine the advantages of bimodal stimulation in pediatric population especially in terms of speech recognition. This study comprised of 30 children between 3 and 6 years of age with profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with cochlear implant in one ear and fitted with digital hearing aid in non-implanted ear. Speech recognition performance was compared in unilateral cochlear implant only and with bimodal hearing stimulation in the same set of children. A statistically significant difference was found between speech reception scores in children with a unilateral cochlear implant only and those with a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the non implanted ear in quiet surroundings. It is suggested that the use of bimodal fitting be considered as an effective management method to obtain the advantage of binaural hearing in children who undergo unilateral cochlear implantation.

Benefits of Bimodal Hearing With Cochlear and Middle Ear Implants: Preliminary Results in Four Patients

OBJECTIVE

Conventional hearing aids have some limitations in overcoming a large air-bone gap or in cases of severe high-frequency hearing loss. The authors aimed to evaluate the benefit of a new bimodal hearing configuration combining cochlear implantation (CI) and middle ear implant (MEI) in patients with severe mixed conductive and ski-slope hearing loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Four patients with severe to profound hearing loss, who underwent CI in one ear and MEI in the other, were enrolled.

INTERVENTION

Audiological outcomes were assessed at least 6 months after the MEI/CI operation. Pure-tone audiometry (PTA) in unaided, CI-aided, and MEI-aided conditions were measured.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Average threshold changes in bands of frequencies (<1 kHz, ≥1 kHz) were compared between MEI-aided and HA-aided conditions. The Korean version of the Hearing-in-Noise Test (K-HINT), and speech perception score in noisy and quiet conditions were evaluated in the bimodal configuration (i.e., MEI with CI).

RESULTS

MEI-aided PTA was especially increased in high-frequency areas (≥1 kHz). Speech perception in noisy and quiet conditions demonstrated better scores in the bimodal configuration. K-HINT also demonstrated better scores in the bimodal configuration.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increasing number of patients with unilateral CI and residual hearing in the contralateral ear. The benefits of a new bimodal hearing configuration with CI and MEI were demonstrated in patients with severe high-frequency hearing loss or mixed conductive hearing loss in the contralateral ear.

Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients

BACKGROUND

A coordinated fitting of a cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral hearing aid (HA) for bimodal device use should emphasize balanced audibility and loudness across devices. However, guidelines for allocating frequency information to the CI and HA are not well established for the growing population of bimodal recipients.

PURPOSE

The study aim was to compare the effects of three different HA frequency responses, when fitting a CI and an HA for bimodal use, on speech recognition and localization in children/young adults. Specifically, the three frequency responses were wideband, restricted high frequency, and nonlinear frequency compression (NLFC), which were compared with measures of word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, talker discrimination, and sound localization.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The HA frequency responses were evaluated using an A B₁ A B₂ test design: wideband frequency response (baseline-A), restricted high-frequency response (experimental-B₁), and NLFC-activated (experimental-B2). All participants were allowed 3-4 weeks between each test session for acclimatization to each new HA setting. Bimodal benefit was determined by comparing the bimodal score to the CI-alone score.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 14 children and young adults (ages 7-21 yr) who were experienced users of bimodal devices. All had been unilaterally implanted with a Nucleus CI24 internal system and used either a Freedom or CP810 speech processor. All received a Phonak Naida IX UP behind-the-ear HA at the beginning of the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Group results for the three bimodal conditions (HA frequency response with wideband, restricted high frequency, and NLFC) on each outcome measure were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Group results using the individual "best bimodal" score were analyzed and confirmed using a resampling procedure. Correlation analyses examined the effects of audibility (aided and unaided hearing) in each bimodal condition for each outcome measure. Individual data were analyzed for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and localization. Individual preference for the three bimodal conditions was also assessed.

RESULTS

Group data revealed no significant difference between the three bimodal conditions for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. However, group data for the localization measure revealed that both wideband and NLFC resulted in significantly improved bimodal performance. The condition that yielded the "best bimodal" score varied across participants. Because of this individual variability, the "best bimodal" score was chosen for each participant to reassess group data within word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. This method revealed a bimodal benefit for word recognition in quiet after a randomization test was used to confirm significance. The majority of the participants preferred NLFC at the conclusion of the study, although a few preferred a restricted high-frequency response or reported no preference.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support consideration of restricted high-frequency and NLFC HA responses in addition to traditional wideband response for bimodal device users.

Effects of residual hearing on cochlear implant outcomes in children: A systematic-review

OBJECTIVES

to investigate if preoperative residual hearing in prelingually deafened children can interfere on cochlear implant indication and outcomes.

METHODS

a systematic-review was conducted in five international databases up to November-2016, to locate articles that evaluated cochlear implantation in children with some degree of preoperative residual hearing. Outcomes were auditory, language and cognition performances after cochlear implant. The quality of the studies was assessed and classified according to the Oxford Levels of Evidence table - 2011. Risk of biases were also described.

RESULTS

From the 30 articles reviewed, two types of questions were identified: (a) what are the benefits of cochlear implantation in children with residual hearing? (b) is the preoperative residual hearing a predictor of cochlear implant outcome? Studies ranged from 04 to 188 subjects, evaluating populations between 1.8 and 10.3 years old. The definition of residual hearing varied between studies. The majority of articles (n = 22) evaluated speech perception as the outcome and 14 also assessed language and speech production.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that cochlear implant is beneficial to children with residual hearing. Preoperative residual hearing seems to be valuable to predict speech perception outcomes after cochlear implantation, even though the mechanism of how it happens is not clear. More extensive researches must be conducted in order to make recommendations and to set prognosis for cochlear implants based on children preoperative residual hearing.

Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants (CI) and single-sided deafness (SSD).

DESIGN

Mandarin speech recognition thresholds were adaptively measured in five listening conditions and four spatial configurations. The original signal was delivered to the left ear. The right ear received either no input, one of three CI simulations in which the insertion depth was varied, or the original signal. Speech and noise were presented at either front, left, or right.

STUDY SAMPLE

Ten Mandarin-speaking NH listeners with pure-tone thresholds less than 20 dB HL.

RESULTS

Relative to no input in the right ear, the CI simulations provided significant improvements in head shadow benefit for all insertion depths, as well as better spatial release of masking (SRM) for the deepest simulated insertion. There were no significant improvements in summation or squelch for any of the CI simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of cochlear implantation were largely limited to head shadow, with some benefit for SRM. The greatest benefits were observed for the deepest simulated CI insertion, suggesting that reducing mismatch between acoustic and electric hearing may increase the benefit of cochlear implantation.

The effects of asymmetric hearing on bilateral brainstem function: findings in children with bimodal (electric and acoustic) hearing

As implantation criteria are broadening to include children with asymmetric hearing loss, it is important to determine the degree of residual hearing needed to protect the bilateral auditory pathways for binaural hearing and whether there is a sensitive period in development for implantation in these children. We have been studying these questions in a growing cohort of children. In the present study, auditory brainstem responses were recorded in 21 children who had 2.2 ± 2.2 years of bimodal hearing. Responses were evoked by 11-Hz acoustic clicks presented to the non-implanted ear and with biphasic electric pulses presented to the implanted ear. Twelve of these children also completed a behavioural task in which they were asked to which side of their heads bilaterally presented clicks/pulses that varied in interaural level or timing lateralized. All children experienced a delay in the non-implanted ear that resulted in 2.0 ± 0.35 ms longer peak latencies. These were further prolonged in 7 children as measured by longer interwave latencies from this ear than from the implanted ear. Despite large asymmetries in timing of brainstem activity between the two ears, all children perceived changes in interaural level differences. They were unable to detect differences in interaural timing cues. Symmetric brainstem function suggests bilateral development was preserved in some children. Future work will explore whether these children have better potential for developing binaural hearing using bimodal input.

Tone and sentence perception in young Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of cochlear implantation in young children in terms of (1) perception of lexical tones in quiet, (2) perception of sentences in quiet and in noise, (3) the effects of five demographic variables (i.e., preoperative hearing level, age at implantation, duration of cochlear implants use, maternal educational level, and whether a child underwent a hearing aid trial before implantation) on lexical tone perception and sentence perception, and (4) the relationship between lexical tone perception and sentence perception.

METHODS

96 participants, aged from 2.41 years to 7.09 years, were recruited in mainland China. The children exhibited normal cognitive abilities and received unilateral implants at an average age of 2.72 years, with ages ranging from 0.69 to 5 years of age.

RESULTS

The mean score for tone identification was 77% (SD=13%; chance level=50%). Tone 2/tone 3 was the most difficult tone contrast to identify. Children with a longer duration of CI use and whose mothers had more years of education tended to perform better in sentence perception in quiet and in noise. Having undergone a hearing aid trial before implantation and more residual hearing were additional factors contributing to better sentence perception in noise. The only demographical variable that related to tone perception in quiet was duration of CI. In addition, while there was a modest correlation between tone perception and sentence perception in quiet (rs=0.47, p<0.001), the correlation between tone perception in quiet and sentence perception in noise was much weaker (rs=-0.28, p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggested that most young children who had been implanted before 5 years of age and had 1-3 years of implant use did not catch up with their aged peers with normal hearing in tone perception and sentence perception. The weak to moderate correlation between tone perception in quiet and sentence perception might imply that the improvement of tone perception in quiet may not necessarily contribute to sentence perception, especially in noise condition.

Effect of aided hearing in the nonimplanted ear on bimodal hearing

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate the binaural effects from bimodal hearing according to the aided hearing threshold in the nonimplanted ear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects included 17 individuals who continued to use a hearing aid (HA) in the nonimplanted ear for more than 6 months postoperatively. Speech perception and sound localization were tested with unilateral cochlear implantation (CI) and bimodal hearing with and without background noise. Materials were presented at an average of 70 dB sound pressure level from a front loudspeaker in a quiet condition and then with background noise at a signal-to-noise ratio of +10 dB HL. Speech perception scores were based on percent-correct performance of repeating a spoken word under each condition. Sound localization scores were obtained by averaging the sum of angle differences between the active loudspeaker and the loudspeaker indicated by the subject.

RESULTS

Speech perception scores (mean ± SD) of unilateral CI and bimodal hearing were 63.3% ± 17.7% and 73.1% ± 18.5% under the quiet condition (p = 0.029) and 65.5% ± 21.9% and 70.9% ± 23.6% under the noisy condition (p = 0.01), respectively. Angle differences (mean ± SD) of unilateral CI and bimodal hearing were 72.8 ± 27.4 degrees and 84.1 ± 29.9 degrees under the quiet condition (p = 0.052) and 79.3 ± 26.9 degrees and 77.3 ± 22.0 degrees under the noisy condition (p = 0.906), respectively. Patients were divided into two groups according to their aided hearing thresholds: Group 1 (aided hearing threshold ≤50 dB HL; n = 8) and Group 2 (aided hearing threshold >50 dB HL; n = 9). The speech perception scores of bimodal hearing in each group were 85.3% ± 13.3% and 60.8% ± 17.5% (p = 0.023) under the quiet condition and 82.7% ± 9.0% and 59.4% ± 26.8% under the noisy condition (p = 0.052), respectively. For sound localization, the angle differences of bimodal hearing in each group were 54 ± 28.6 degrees and 83.9 ± 11.9 degrees under the quiet condition (p = 0.042) and 63.0 ± 23.5 degrees and 89 ± 22.6 degrees under the noisy condition (p = 0.049), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on the relationship between the aided hearing level and bimodal hearing performance, this current study suggests that bimodal benefits for sound localization and speech perception in noise are significant but only when sound detection is adequate for the hearing aids. Therefore, bimodal hearing could be applied to selective patients with favorable aided hearing levels.

Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification

OBJECTIVES

Despite excellent performance in speech recognition in quiet, most cochlear implant users have great difficulty with speech recognition in noise, music perception, identifying tone of voice, and discriminating different talkers. This may be partly due to the pitch coding in cochlear implant speech processing. Most current speech processing strategies use only the envelope information; the temporal fine structure is discarded. One way to improve electric pitch perception is to use residual acoustic hearing via a hearing aid on the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that bimodal users would perform better than bilateral cochlear implant users on tasks requiring good pitch perception.

DESIGN

Four pitch-related tasks were used. 1. Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences spoken by a male talker with a competing female, male, or child talker. 2. Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia. This is a music test with six subtests examining pitch, rhythm and timing perception, and musical memory. 3. Aprosodia Battery. This has five subtests evaluating aspects of affective prosody and recognition of sarcasm. 4. Talker identification using vowels spoken by 10 different talkers (three men, three women, two boys, and two girls). Bilateral cochlear implant users were chosen as the comparison group. Thirteen bimodal and 13 bilateral adult cochlear implant users were recruited; all had good speech perception in quiet.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the mean scores of the bimodal and bilateral groups on any of the tests, although the bimodal group did perform better than the bilateral group on almost all tests. Performance on the different pitch-related tasks was not correlated, meaning that if a subject performed one task well they would not necessarily perform well on another. The correlation between the bimodal users' hearing threshold levels in the aided ear and their performance on these tasks was weak.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the bimodal cochlear implant group performed better than the bilateral group on most parts of the four pitch-related tests, the differences were not statistically significant. The lack of correlation between test results shows that the tasks used are not simply providing a measure of pitch ability. Even if the bimodal users have better pitch perception, the real-world tasks used are reflecting more diverse skills than pitch. This research adds to the existing speech perception, language, and localization studies that show no significant difference between bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users.

Article 1: Long-Term outcomes of cochlear implantation in early childhood: Sample characteristics and data collection methods

Articles contained in this monograph describe the communication performance of 112 teenagers who received multichannel cochlear implants between the ages of 2 and 5 years. Children were first tested during the elementary school years when they were 8 or 9 years of age. They also were tested as adolescents when they were between 15 and 18 years old. Characteristics of the population are described including their modes of communication and educational environments. Child, family and educational variables that will be explored in the following articles as possible predictors of successful outcomes are introduced.

Speech recognition performance in children with cochlear implants using bimodal stimulation

Cochlear implantees have considerably good speech understanding abilities in quiet surroundings. But, ambient noise poses significant difficulties in understanding speech for these individuals. Bimodal stimulation is still not used by many Indian implantees in spite of reports that bimodal stimulation is beneficial for speech understanding in noise as compared to cochlear implant alone and also prevents auditory deprivation in the un-implanted ear. The aim of the study is to evaluate the benefits of bimodal stimulation in children in an Indian cochlear implant clinic. A group of 14 children who have been using cochlear implants served as subjects in this study. They were fitted with advanced digital hearing aids in their un-implanted ears to provide bimodal stimulation. Results revealed that bimodal stimulation did not bring greater change in speech scores in quiet surroundings but have shown a noticeable improvement in noisy ambience. Hence the present study suggests that bimodal stimulation would benefit children with cochlear implants especially in adverse listening conditions.

Adaptação de próteses auditivas no candidato ao implante coclear

OBJETIVO: caracterizar o perfil audiométrico e demográfico de pacientes candidatos ao implante coclear encaminhados ao setor de prótese auditiva e entre esses, a frequência de indivíduos que se beneficiaram da amplificação sonora. MÉTODOS: foram estudados os pacientes atendidos no período de maio de 2007 a dezembro 2008. Foi realizado o levantamento do perfil da população segundo sexo, idade, escolaridade e etiologia. Foi calculada a média da melhor e pior orelha e classificada segundo Frota (2003). A média dos limiares auditivos com as próteses auditivas indicadas foi calculada e considerada como benefício quando permitia acesso aos sons da fala do português brasileiro (Russo e Behlau, 1993). RESULTADOS: foram avaliados nesse período 194 prontuários. 108 pacientes já eram usuários de próteses auditivas (55,6%), 100 do sexo masculino (52%), 94 do sexo feminino (48%), 109 eram crianças (56%) e 85 eram adultos (44%). A média de idade foi 4,8 anos (crianças) e 41,9 anos (adultos). Entre os adultos, 24 possuíam ensino fundamental incompleto (33%). A etiologia mais frequente foi a desconhecida (33%). Dezenove pacientes se beneficiaram do uso da prótese auditiva (10%). No grupo de pacientes que se beneficiaram da prótese auditiva, a média dos limiares em campo livre com amplificação foi de 47 dBNA e 48 dBNA, na melhor e na pior orelha, respectivamente, nas crianças e 50 dBNA e 45 dBNA, respectivamente, nos adultos. CONCLUSÃO: o perfil dos pacientes foi: na maioria criança, sexo masculino, etiologia desconhecida, já usuários de próteses auditivas com média de idade 4,8 anos (crianças) e 41,9 anos (adultos), audiometria com perda auditiva neurossensorial profunda bilateral, sendo que a prótese beneficiou 10% dos pacientes.

Perception of speech by prelingual pre-adolescent and adolescent cochlear implant users

This study was undertaken to assess the speech perception benefits, 24 months after cochlear implantation (CI), in 20 young people (age at CI, 8-18.5 years) with prelingual profound hearing loss, in addition to the use of a proposed CI candidacy assessment profile. Speech perception was evaluated in terms of word and sentence perception before CI, and at six-monthly intervals for two years after CI. Before undergoing CI, all participants were tested on a pre-implantation assessment profile. Compared to the pre-CI findings, group results over 24 months post-CI demonstrated improved speech perception abilities reaching, on average, 46% for word recognition, 71.3% for sentences in quiet, and 33.6% for sentences in noise. Pre-CI profile scores correlated significantly with all speech perception results obtained 24 months after CI. Thus, despite their relatively late ages at implantation, all participants showed gradually improving performance in speech perception. The results showed a high variability in the outcomes of the participants. The pre-CI profile appeared to be useful in formulating realistic expectations of CI outcome during pre-implantation consultations, suggesting that expectations can and should be managed according to each patient's pre-implantation assessment.

Perfil audiológico do usuário implante coclear e aparelho de amplificação sonora individual na orelha contralateral: resultados preliminares

OBJETIVO: conhecer o perfil residual audiológico dos usuários e não usuários de Aparelho de Amplificação Sonora Individual (AASI) contralateral ao Implante Coclear (IC) no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP). MÉTODOS: foram avaliados 18 pacientes adultos, pós-linguais que preencheram os critérios estipulados, respondendo à pergunta "Você usa ou já usou AASI na orelha contralateral ao IC. Foi realizada a análise de média tonal liminar dos 18 pacientes. RESULTADOS: os pacientes do Grupo de Implante Coclear da Divisão de Otorrinolaringologia da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, que não usam AASI contralateral ao IC, têm perfil residual audiológico médio de 122.5 dB. Os pacientes que se beneficiam do uso de AASI associado ao IC tem perfil residual audiológico médio de 101.25 dB. CONCLUSÃO: os pacientes não usuários de AASI contralateral têm audição residual significativamente pior do ponto de vista clínico que os pacientes que usam AASI contralateral associado ao IC na Divisão de Otorrinolaringologia do HCFMUSP.

Cochlear implant and hearing aid: a new approach to optimizing the fitting in this bimodal situation

More and more patients with residual hearing on the contralateral side are becoming candidates for cochlear implants (CI) surgery due to increasing CI. The major benefits of regular binaural hearing are spatial hearing, localization, and signal source discrimination in both quiet and noisy surroundings. In most of the reports, hearing aid fitting was carried out without balancing both the devices. Twelve children and eight adults with residual hearing on the non-operated side were binaurally fitted. Our fitting procedure for the hearing aid was based on the desired sensation level [i/o] method. A loudness scaling was used to adjust the loudness perception monaurally and to balance the volume of both devices. Speech audiometry in quiet and noisy surroundings was conducted both monaurally and in the bimodal mode. The fitting was modified according to the respective test results. In all children and six adults, a measurable gain and/or a subjective improvement of speech perception was achieved. Two adult patients did not accept the new fitting. In seven younger children, loudness scaling was impossible to perform because of age. This was also the case with speech audiometry for two children. A structured bimodal fitting using loudness scaling for both the cochlear implant and the hearing aid results in a subjective and objective amelioration of the patient's hearing and speech perception.

Bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation?

This paper summarises findings from studies that evaluated the benefits of bimodal fitting (combining a hearing aid and a cochlear implant in opposite ears) or bilateral cochlear implantation, relative to unilateral implantation, for children (Ching et al., 2007). On average, the size of binaural speech intelligibility advantages due to redundancy and head shadow was similar for the two bilateral conditions. An added advantage of bimodal fitting was that the low-frequency cues provided by acoustic hearing complemented the high-frequency cues conveyed by electric hearing in perception of voice and music. Some children with bilateral cochlear implants were able to use spatial separation between speech and noise to improve speech perception in noise. This is possibly a combined effect of the directional microphones in their implant systems and their ability to use spatial cues. The evidence to date supports the provision of hearing in two ears as the standard of care.

Effect of bimodal hearing in Korean children with profound hearing loss

CONCLUSION

Bimodal hearing with combined acoustic stimulation and electric stimulation could enhance speech performance in deaf patients by residual hearing even though the amount of residual hearing is not enough to be used for communication by amplification.

OBJECTIVES

The cochlear implant (CI) is a well-known therapeutic option for patients with profound hearing loss. However, deaf patients with a CI still have trouble in localization of sounds and understanding speech in a noisy environment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of bimodal hearing with a CI in one ear and a hearing aid in the contralateral ear in Korean children with profound hearing loss.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Fourteen deaf children with residual hearing participated in this study. There were eight male and six female patients, with an age range of 4.6-13.8 years at the time of testing. The test was conducted between 3 months and 4.2 years after cochlear implantation. Speech performance was examined in a noisy environment using Korean word lists. A speech sound and the noise were presented to the child from the front loudspeaker.

RESULTS

The results showed that speech performance in a noisy environment was significantly better with bimodal hearing than with a CI alone.

Selection Strategies for Binaural and Monaural Cochlear Implantation

Purpose

We propose theoretical guidelines for cochlear implant selection criteria in adults and children that emphasize the contribution of each ear to the binaural advantage. The guidelines outline options for implanting one ear only, implanting one ear plus use of a contralateral hearing aid, and implanting both ears.

Method

Our method for selecting the best cochlear implant or hearing aid outcome is derived from the amount of usable hearing of the patient. This approach requires the measurement of aided speech perception with each ear separately and then bilaterally. Guidelines are based on the following: (a) overall level of performance with hearing aids relative to what is expected from a cochlear implant, (b) the contributions from each ear, and (c) whether there is a binaural advantage.

Conclusions

Our general recommendation is to provide the patient with the best opportunity for binaural hearing. Since the guidelines put forth in this article are theoretically based, future efforts should be aimed at examining the validity of these guidelines.

Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review

There are now many recipients of unilateral cochlear implants who have usable residual hearing in the non-implanted ear. To avoid auditory deprivation and to provide binaural hearing, a hearing aid or a second cochlear implant can be fitted to that ear. This article addresses the question of whether better binaural hearing can be achieved with binaural/bimodal fitting (combining a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears) or bilateral implantation. In the first part of this article, the rationale for providing binaural hearing is examined. In the second part, the literature on the relative efficacy of binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation is reviewed. Most studies on comparing either mode of bilateral stimulation with unilateral implantation reported some binaural benefits in some test conditions on average but revealed that some individuals benefited, whereas others did not. There were no controlled comparisons between binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation and no evidence to support the efficacy of one mode over the other. In the third part of the article, a crossover trial of two adults who had binaural/bimodal fitting and who subsequently received a second implant is reported. The findings at 6 and 12 months after they received their second implant indicated that binaural function developed over time, and the extent of benefit depended on which abilities were assessed for the individual. In the fourth and final parts of the article, clinical issues relating to candidacy for binaural/ bimodal fitting and strategies for bimodal fitting are discussed with implications for future research.

Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review

There are now many recipients of unilateral cochlear implants who have usable residual hearing in the non-implanted ear. To avoid auditory deprivation and to provide binaural hearing, a hearing aid or a second cochlear implant can be fitted to that ear. This article addresses the question of whether better binaural hearing can be achieved with binaural/bimodal fitting (combining a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears) or bilateral implantation. In the first part of this article, the rationale for providing binaural hearing is examined. In the second part, the literature on the relative efficacy of binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation is reviewed. Most studies on comparing either mode of bilateral stimulation with unilateral implantation reported some binaural benefits in some test conditions on average but revealed that some individuals benefited, whereas others did not. There were no controlled comparisons between binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation and no evidence to support the efficacy of one mode over the other. In the third part of the article, a crossover trial of two adults who had binaural/bimodal fitting and who subsequently received a second implant is reported. The findings at 6 and 12 months after they received their second implant indicated that binaural function developed over time, and the extent of benefit depended on which abilities were assessed for the individual. In the fourth and final parts of the article, clinical issues relating to candidacy for binaural/ bimodal fitting and strategies for bimodal fitting are discussed with implications for future research.

Performance in children with hearing aids or cochlear implants: bilateral stimulation and binaural hearing

It is well recognised that normal hearing people use their hearing in both ears to locate sounds and to understand speech in complex listening conditions. Whereas it is standard practice to provide two hearing aids to children with bilateral hearing loss, the situation with cochlear implantation is less certain. Questions remain as to what binaural aided functioning is possible for children who use a hearing aid and a cochlear implant in opposite ears (bimodal hearing). The first part of this paper draws on research at the National Acoustic Laboratories to show that children who used bimodal hearing devices obtained binaural advantages in localization. They could also take advantage of head shadow and binaural redundancy for speech intelligibility. The second part presents data showing that some hearing-impaired children may have binaural processing deficits even when bilateral stimulation is provided. Additional strategies may be necessary to develop or enable the use of binaural cues by these children.

Speech Recognition in Noise in Children With Cochlear Implants While Listening in Bilateral, Bimodal, and FM-System Arrangements

Purpose

Speech recognition performance in noise was examined in children with cochlear implants (CIs) when using (a) a second CI (bilateral group), (b) a hearing aid (HA) on the nonimplant ear (bimodal group), and (c) a frequency modulation (FM) system on 1 or both sides.

Method

While always maintaining use of the first CI, 2 groups participated in 6 conditions each using various listening arrangements with the second CI, HA, or FM system. Speech-in-noise thresholds were determined using simple phrases, classroom noise, and a method-of-limits approach.

Results

No group differences were detected across any conditions. In the no-FM-system conditions, no significant benefit of bilateral or bimodal input was found relative to a single CI. In the FM-system conditions, thresholds were significantly lower (up to 20 dB) relative to all other conditions when FM-system input was provided to the first-implanted side or to both sides simultaneously.

Conclusions

Children’s speech-in-noise thresholds did not improve when providing input to the second side with a CI or an HA relative to a single CI. However, children with CIs had better speech recognition in noise with the use of an FM system on one or both sides relative to the conditions with no FM system. Binaural conditions with a single FM receiver on the second CI or HA yielded significantly poorer performance than any other FM condition.

An Overview of Binaural Advantages for Children and Adults Who Use Binaural/Bimodal Hearing Devices

AIM

The aim of this paper was to summarize the binaural advantages for sentence perception in noise and sound localization obtained by children and adults who wore a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid in opposite ears (bimodal hearing devices).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated the speech perception and sound localization ability of 29 children and 21 adults who received a Nucleus CI system in one ear and wore a hearing aid in the other ear. All subjects used hearing aids that were adjusted systematically to complement their CIs. Performance with a CI and a hearing aid was compared with that with a CI alone.

RESULTS

On average, both children and adults derived binaural advantages relating to binaural redundancy and head shadow for sentence perception in noise. Neither the degree of hearing loss nor the duration of use of bimodal hearing devices was significantly related to the amount of binaural speech benefits. Both groups also located sounds better with CI and a hearing aid than with CI alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supports the implementation of binaural/bimodal fittings as the standard management of children and adults who receive a unilateral CI and who have residual hearing in the nonimplanted ear.