Evaluation of a novel bimodal fitting formula in Advanced Bionics cochlear implant recipients

Integrated bimodal fitting and binaural streaming technology outcomes for unilateral cochlear implant users

OBJECTIVE

Adults typically receive only one cochlear implant (CI) due to cost constraints, with a contralateral hearing aid recommended when there is aidable hearing. Standard hearing aids differ from a CI in terms of processing strategy and function as a separate entity, requiring the user to integrate the disparate signals. Integrated bimodal technology has recently been introduced to address this challenge. The aim of the study was to investigate the performance of unilateral CI users with and without an integrated bimodal fitting and determine whether binaural streaming technology offers additional benefit.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty-six CI users using integrated bimodal technology.

DESIGN

Repeated measures where outcomes and user experience were assessed using a functional test battery more representative of real life listening (speech perception in noise tests, localisation test, tracking test) and the speech, spatial and qualities-of-hearing scale (SSQ).

RESULTS

Bimodal outcomes were significantly better than for CI alone. Speech perception in noise improvements ranged from 1.4 dB to 3.5 dB depending on the location of speech and noise. The localisation and tracking tests, and the SSQ also showed significant improvements. Binaural streaming offered additional improvement (1.2 dB to 6.1 dB on the different speech tests).

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated bimodal and binaural streaming technology improved the performance of unilateral CI users.

CROS or hearing aid? Selecting the ideal solution for unilateral CI patients with limited aidable hearing in the contralateral ear

A hearing aid or a contralateral routing of signal device are options for unilateral cochlear implant listeners with limited hearing in the unimplanted ear; however, it is uncertain which device provides greater benefit beyond unilateral listening alone. Eighteen unilateral cochlear implant listeners participated in this prospective, within-participants, repeated measures study. Participants were tested with the cochlear implant alone, cochlear implant + hearing aid, and cochlear implant + contralateral routing of signal device configurations with a one-month take-home period between each in-person visit. Audiograms, speech perception in noise, and lateralization were evaluated. Subjective feedback was obtained via questionnaires. Marked improvement in speech in noise and non-implanted ear lateralization accuracy were observed with the addition of a contralateral hearing aid. There were no significant differences in speech recognition between listening configurations. However, the chronic device use questionnaires and the final device selection showed a clear preference for the hearing aid in spatial awareness and communication domains. Individuals with limited hearing in their unimplanted ears demonstrate significant improvement with the addition of a contralateral device. Subjective questionnaires somewhat contrast with clinic-based outcome measures, highlighting the delicate decision-making process involved in clinically advising one device or another to maximize communication benefits.

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.

Beamforming and Single-Microphone Noise Reduction: Effects on Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Speech Recognition of Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

We have investigated the effectiveness of three noise-reduction algorithms, namely an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB), a fixed binaural beamformer (BB), and a single-microphone stationary-noise reduction algorithm (SNRA) by assessing the speech reception threshold (SRT) in a group of 15 bimodal cochlear implant users. Speech was presented frontally towards the listener and background noise was established as a homogeneous field of long-term speech-spectrum-shaped (LTSS) noise or 8-talker babble. We pursued four research questions, namely: whether the benefits of beamforming on the SRT differ between LTSS noise and 8-talker babble; whether BB is more effective than MB; whether SNRA improves the SRT in LTSS noise; and whether the SRT benefits of MB and BB are comparable to their improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The results showed that MB and BB significantly improved SRTs by an average of 2.6 dB and 2.9 dB, respectively. These benefits did not statistically differ between noise types or between the two beamformers. By contrast, physical SNR improvements obtained with a manikin revealed substantially greater benefits of BB (6.6 dB) than MB (3.3 dB). SNRA did not significantly affect SRTs per se in omnidirectional microphone settings, nor in combination with MB and BB. We conclude that in the group of bimodal listeners tested, BB had no additional benefits on speech recognition over MB in homogeneous noise, despite the finding that BB had a substantial larger benefit on the SNR than MB. SNRA did not improve speech recognition.