Contribution of a contralateral hearing aid to perception of consonant voicing, intonation, and emotional state in adult cochlear implantees

Contralateral hearing aid use in adult cochlear implant recipients: retrospective analysis of auditory outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To investigate retrospectively the frequency of usage of bimodal stimulation among cochlear implant (CI) users, as well its clinical benefit relative to unilateral use.

DESIGN

All subjects had been monitored with the clinical Minimal Outcome Measurements test battery.

STUDY SAMPLES

103 adults with bilateral postlingual profound sensorineural hearing loss and unilateral CI use were extracted from the local database. These were divided into two groups: those who only used a CI and those who used bimodal stimulation.

RESULTS

The preoperative contralateral residual hearing in the bimodal group was significantly better than that of the CI-only group. In both groups, speech perception in quiet and in noise improved after CI, with no significant difference between postoperative unimodal conditions. For the bimodal group, an additional significant improvement was found for the bimodal condition compared to the unimodal.

CONCLUSION

Given the observed auditory benefit of bimodal stimulation in comparison to unimodal stimulation and given the finding that degree of residual hearing is not correlated with bimodal benefits, it is recommended to encourage CI recipients to continue contralateral HA use after CI. As a result of expanding CI criteria worldwide, the population of bimodal users is expected to grow in the near future.

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Emotional Communication in Hearing Questionnaire

PURPOSE

The Emotional Communication in Hearing Questionnaire (EMO-CHeQ) is designed to evaluate awareness of vocal emotion information and perception of emotion. This study sought to translate the EMO-CHeQ into Turkish in accordance with international standards and to ascertain its validity and reliability statistically by administering it to native Turkish-speaking subjects.

METHOD

This empirical study involved collecting data from participants using a scale. A total of 460 individuals, comprising 158 women and 302 men (Mage = 33.43 ± 13.14 years), participated. The data encompassed 295 subjects with normal hearing, 101 hearing aid users, and 64 cochlear implant users. Exploratory factor analysis, followed by confirmatory factor analysis, was employed to ensure construct validity. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha reliability analysis, and content validity was applied to examine how effectively the Turkish version of the scale fulfilled its intended purpose.

RESULTS

The total Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was .949, and the explained variance was 74.385%. The Turkish version of the EMO-CHeQ demonstrated high construct validity, internal consistency, and explanatory efficacy. The scale revealed significant differences (p < .05) in emotional communication among the normal-hearing group, hearing aid users, and cochlear implant users.

CONCLUSIONS

The Turkish adaptation of the EMO-CHeQ is a credible and robust tool for evaluating how individuals perceive emotion in speech. Emotion perception was found to be suboptimal among hearing aid users compared to cochlear implant users, although it was most proficient in those with normal hearing.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24520624.

An overview of factors affecting bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) speech understanding outcomes

Improvements in device technology, surgical technique, and patient outcomes have resulted in a broadening of cochlear implantation criteria to consider those with increasing levels of useful low-to-mid frequency residual acoustic hearing. Residual acoustic hearing allows for the addition of a hearing aid (HA) to complement the cochlear implant (CI) and has demonstrated enhanced listening outcomes. However, wide inter-subject outcome variability exists and thus identification of contributing factors would be of clinical interest and may aid with pre-operative patient counselling. The optimal fitting procedure and frequency assignments for the two hearing devices used in combination to enhance listening outcomes also remains unclear. The understanding of how acoustic and electric speech information is fundamentally combined and utilised by the listener may allow for the optimisation of device fittings and frequency allocations to provide best bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) patient outcomes. This article will provide an overview of contributing factors to bimodal and EAS listening outcomes, explore areas of contention, and discuss common study limitations.

Emotional Responses to Non-Speech Sounds for Hearing-aid and Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Listeners

The purpose of this project was to evaluate differences between groups and device configurations for emotional responses to non-speech sounds. Three groups of adults participated: 1) listeners with normal hearing with no history of device use, 2) hearing aid candidates with or without hearing aid experience, and 3) bimodal cochlear-implant listeners with at least 6 months of implant use. Participants (n = 18 in each group) rated valence and arousal of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant non-speech sounds. Listeners with normal hearing rated sounds without hearing devices. Hearing aid candidates rated sounds while using one or two hearing aids. Bimodal cochlear-implant listeners rated sounds while using a hearing aid alone, a cochlear implant alone, or the hearing aid and cochlear implant simultaneously. Analysis revealed significant differences between groups in ratings of pleasant and unpleasant stimuli; ratings from hearing aid candidates and bimodal cochlear-implant listeners were less extreme (less pleasant and less unpleasant) than were ratings from listeners with normal hearing. Hearing aid candidates' ratings were similar with one and two hearing aids. Bimodal cochlear-implant listeners' ratings of valence were higher (more pleasant) in the configuration without a hearing aid (implant only) than in the two configurations with a hearing aid (alone or with an implant). These data support the need for further investigation into hearing device optimization to improve emotional responses to non-speech sounds for adults with hearing loss.

Bimodal Benefits Revealed by Categorical Perception of Lexical Tones in Mandarin-Speaking Kindergarteners With a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid

Purpose Pitch reception poses challenges for individuals with cochlear implants (CIs), and adding a hearing aid (HA) in the nonimplanted ear is potentially beneficial. The current study used fine-scale synthetic speech stimuli to investigate the bimodal benefit for lexical tone categorization in Mandarin-speaking kindergarteners using a CI and an HA in opposite ears. Method The data were collected from 16 participants who were required to complete two classical tasks for speech categorical perception (CP) with CI + HA device condition and CI alone condition. Linear mixed-effects models were constructed to evaluate the identification and discrimination scores across different device conditions. Results The bimodal kindergarteners showed CP for the continuum varying from Mandarin Tone 1 and Tone 2. Moreover, the additional acoustic information from the contralateral HA contributes to improved lexical tone categorization, with a steeper slope, a higher discrimination score of between-category stimuli pair, and an improved peakedness score (i.e., an increased benefit magnitude for discriminations of between-category over within-category pairs) for the CI + HA condition than the CI alone condition. The bimodal kindergarteners with better residual hearing thresholds at 250 Hz level in the nonimplanted ear could perceive lexical tones more categorically. Conclusion The enhanced CP results with bimodal listening provide clear evidence for the clinical practice to fit a contralateral HA in the nonimplanted ear in kindergarteners with unilateral CIs with direct benefits from the low-frequency acoustic hearing.

Self-assessment of unilateral and bimodal cochlear implant experiences in daily life

Objective

The subjective experiences were assessed of cochlear implant (CI) users either wearing or not wearing a hearing aid (HA) at the contralateral ear.

Design

Unilateral CI-recipients were asked to fill out a set of daily-life questionnaires on bimodal HA use, hearing disability, hearing handicap and general quality of life.

Study sample

Twenty-six CI-recipients who regularly use a contralateral HA (bimodal group) and twenty-two CI-recipients who do not use a HA in the contralateral ear (unilateral group).

Results

Comparisons between both groups (bimodal versus unilateral) showed no difference in self-rated disability, hearing handicap or general quality of life. However within the group of bimodal listeners, participants did report a benefit of bimodal hearing ability in various daily life listening situations.

Conclusions

Bimodal benefit in daily life can consistently be experienced and reported within the group of bimodal users.

Are There Real-world Benefits to Bimodal Listening?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits of bimodal listening (i.e., addition of contralateral hearing aid) for cochlear implant (CI) users on real-world tasks involving high-talker variability speech materials, environmental sounds, and self-reported quality of life (quality of hearing) in listeners' own best-aided conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study between groups.

SETTING

Outpatient hearing clinic.

PATIENTS

Fifty experienced adult CI users divided into groups based on normal daily listening conditions (i.e., best-aided conditions): unilateral CI (CI), unilateral CI with contralateral HA (bimodal listening; CIHA), or bilateral CI (CICI).

INTERVENTION

Task-specific measures of speech recognition with low (Harvard Standard Sentences) and high (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set corpus) talker variability, environmental sound recognition (Familiar Environmental Sounds Test-Identification), and hearing-related quality of life (Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Test group differences among CI, CIHA, and CICI conditions.

RESULTS

No group effect was observed for speech recognition with low or high-talker variability, or hearing-related quality of life. Bimodal listeners demonstrated a benefit in environmental sound recognition compared with unilateral CI listeners, with a trend of greater benefit than the bilateral CI group. There was also a visual trend for benefit on high-talker variability speech recognition.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide evidence that bimodal listeners demonstrate stronger environmental sound recognition compared with unilateral CI listeners, and support the idea that there are additional advantages to bimodal listening after implantation other than speech recognition measures, which are at risk of being lost if considering bilateral implantation.

Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners' Ability to Perceive Minimal Audible Angle Differences

BACKGROUND

Bilateral inputs should ideally improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise. However, for many bimodal listeners [i.e., individuals using a cochlear implant (CI) with a contralateral hearing aid (HA)], such bilateral benefits are at best, inconsistent. The degree to which clinically available HA and CI devices can function together to preserve interaural time and level differences (ITDs and ILDs, respectively) enough to support the localization of sound sources is a question with important ramifications for speech understanding in complex acoustic environments.

PURPOSE

To determine if bimodal listeners are sensitive to changes in spatial location in a minimum audible angle (MAA) task.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Repeated-measures design.

STUDY SAMPLE

Seven adult bimodal CI users (28-62 years). All listeners reported regular use of digital HA technology in the nonimplanted ear.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven bimodal listeners were asked to balance the loudness of prerecorded single syllable utterances. The loudness-balanced stimuli were then presented via direct audio inputs of the two devices with an ITD applied. The task of the listener was to determine the perceived difference in processing delay (the interdevice delay [IDD]) between the CI and HA devices. Finally, virtual free-field MAA performance was measured for different spatial locations both with and without inclusion of the IDD correction, which was added with the intent to perceptually synchronize the devices.

RESULTS

During the loudness-balancing task, all listeners required increased acoustic input to the HA relative to the CI most comfortable level to achieve equal interaural loudness. During the ITD task, three listeners could perceive changes in intracranial position by distinguishing sounds coming from the left or from the right hemifield; when the CI was delayed by 0.73, 0.67, or 1.7 msec, the signal lateralized from one side to the other. When MAA localization performance was assessed, only three of the seven listeners consistently achieved above-chance performance, even when an IDD correction was included. It is not clear whether the listeners who were able to consistently complete the MAA task did so via binaural comparison or by extracting monaural loudness cues. Four listeners could not perform the MAA task, even though they could have used a monaural loudness cue strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that sound localization is extremely difficult for most bimodal listeners. This difficulty does not seem to be caused by large loudness imbalances and IDDs. Sound localization is best when performed via a binaural comparison, where frequency-matched inputs convey ITD and ILD information. Although low-frequency acoustic amplification with a HA when combined with a CI may produce an overlapping region of frequency-matched inputs and thus provide an opportunity for binaural comparisons for some bimodal listeners, our study showed that this may not be beneficial or useful for spatial location discrimination tasks. The inability of our listeners to use monaural-level cues to perform the MAA task highlights the difficulty of using a HA and CI together to glean information on the direction of a sound source.

The Benefits of Bimodal Aiding on Extended Dimensions of Speech Perception: Intelligibility, Listening Effort, and Sound Quality

The benefits of combining a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) in opposite ears on speech perception were examined in 15 adult unilateral CI recipients who regularly use a contralateral HA. A within-subjects design was carried out to assess speech intelligibility testing, listening effort ratings, and a sound quality questionnaire for the conditions CI alone, CIHA together, and HA alone when applicable. The primary outcome of bimodal benefit, defined as the difference between CIHA and CI, was statistically significant for speech intelligibility in quiet as well as for intelligibility in noise across tested spatial conditions. A reduction in effort on top of intelligibility at the highest tested signal-to-noise ratio was found. Moreover, the bimodal listening situation was rated to sound more voluminous, less tinny, and less unpleasant than CI alone. Listening effort and sound quality emerged as feasible and relevant measures to demonstrate bimodal benefit across a clinically representative range of bimodal users. These extended dimensions of speech perception can shed more light on the array of benefits provided by complementing a CI with a contralateral HA.

Hearing, Emotion, Amplification, Research, and Training Workshop: Current Understanding of Hearing Loss and Emotion Perception and Priorities for Future Research

The question of how hearing loss and hearing rehabilitation affect patients' momentary emotional experiences is one that has received little attention but has considerable potential to affect patients' psychosocial function. This article is a product from the Hearing, Emotion, Amplification, Research, and Training workshop, which was convened to develop a consensus document describing research on emotion perception relevant for hearing research. This article outlines conceptual frameworks for the investigation of emotion in hearing research; available subjective, objective, neurophysiologic, and peripheral physiologic data acquisition research methods; the effects of age and hearing loss on emotion perception; potential rehabilitation strategies; priorities for future research; and implications for clinical audiologic rehabilitation. More broadly, this article aims to increase awareness about emotion perception research in audiology and to stimulate additional research on the topic.

Multisensory emotion perception in congenitally, early, and late deaf CI users

Emotions are commonly recognized by combining auditory and visual signals (i.e., vocal and facial expressions). Yet it is unknown whether the ability to link emotional signals across modalities depends on early experience with audio-visual stimuli. In the present study, we investigated the role of auditory experience at different stages of development for auditory, visual, and multisensory emotion recognition abilities in three groups of adolescent and adult cochlear implant (CI) users. CI users had a different deafness onset and were compared to three groups of age- and gender-matched hearing control participants. We hypothesized that congenitally deaf (CD) but not early deaf (ED) and late deaf (LD) CI users would show reduced multisensory interactions and a higher visual dominance in emotion perception than their hearing controls. The CD (n = 7), ED (deafness onset: <3 years of age; n = 7), and LD (deafness onset: >3 years; n = 13) CI users and the control participants performed an emotion recognition task with auditory, visual, and audio-visual emotionally congruent and incongruent nonsense speech stimuli. In different blocks, participants judged either the vocal (Voice task) or the facial expressions (Face task). In the Voice task, all three CI groups performed overall less efficiently than their respective controls and experienced higher interference from incongruent facial information. Furthermore, the ED CI users benefitted more than their controls from congruent faces and the CD CI users showed an analogous trend. In the Face task, recognition efficiency of the CI users and controls did not differ. Our results suggest that CI users acquire multisensory interactions to some degree, even after congenital deafness. When judging affective prosody they appear impaired and more strongly biased by concurrent facial information than typically hearing individuals. We speculate that limitations inherent to the CI contribute to these group differences.

Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

PURPOSE

The objective was to determine whether speech perception could be improved for bimodal listeners (those using a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and hearing aid in the contralateral ear) by removing low-frequency information provided by the CI, thereby reducing acoustic-electric overlap.

METHOD

Subjects were adult CI subjects with at least 1 year of CI experience. Nine subjects were evaluated in the CI-only condition (control condition), and 26 subjects were evaluated in the bimodal condition. CIs were programmed with 4 experimental programs in which the low cutoff frequency (LCF) was progressively raised. Speech perception was evaluated using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words in quiet, AzBio sentences in background babble, and spondee words in background babble.

RESULTS

The CI-only group showed decreased speech perception in both quiet and noise as the LCF was raised. Bimodal subjects with better hearing in the hearing aid ear (< 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed best for words in quiet as the LCF was raised. In contrast, bimodal subjects with worse hearing (> 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed similarly to the CI-only group.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that reducing low-frequency overlap of the CI and contralateral hearing aid may improve performance in quiet for some bimodal listeners with better hearing.

From hearing with a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid (CI/HA) to hearing with two cochlear implants (CI/CI): a within-subject design comparison

OBJECTIVE

To compare within-subject bilateral-binaural and bimodal complementary abilities between bimodal (cochlear implant and hearing aid; CI/HA) and bilateral CI hearing (CI/CI), thereby enabling better-informed counseling of experienced CI/HA users contemplating contralateral implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Comparative within-subject case review.

SETTING

Outpatient hearing clinic.

PATIENTS

Ten experienced adult CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, who converted to CI/CI between 2 and 11 years after initial implantation.

INTERVENTION

Task-specific testing of bilateral-binaural hearing (sound lateralization, binaural summation/redundancy/unmasking, head-shadow effect), bimodal complementary benefit (contribution of low-frequency information), and a self-report Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaire, all before and 1 year after contralateral cochlear implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Test result differences between CI/HA and CI/CI conditions.

RESULTS

CI/CI hearing was better than CI/HA for speech lateralization and for perception of semantically unpredictable sentences in speech noise with speech at 0 degrees and noise at +90 degrees azimuth on the old CI side. CI/HA was better than CI/CI only for differences between perception of natural prosody speech and of speech with flattened fundamental frequency (F0) contour with speech and noise in front (at 0 degrees azimuth). Total scores on the SSQ questionnaire were higher in CI/CI than in CI/HA users.

CONCLUSION

Counseling regarding contralateral implantation for CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, though generally positive, should consider individual functional needs, and cover expectations about the expected trade-off between gaining improved understanding and speech lateralization in challenging listening conditions and losing some low-frequency cues still available with CI/HA hearing.

Song recognition by young children with cochlear implants: comparison between unilateral, bilateral, and bimodal users

PURPOSE

To examine song identification by preschoolers with normal hearing (NH) versus preschoolers with cochlear implants (CIs).

METHOD

Participants included 45 children ages 3;8-7;3 (years;months): 12 with NH and 33 with CIs, including 10 with unilateral CI, 14 with bilateral CIs, and 9 bimodal users (CI-HA) with unilateral CI and contralateral hearing aid. Preschoolers were asked to identify children's songs presented via 5 versions: (a) full (lyrics sung with piano accompaniment); (b) a cappella (only lyrics); (c) melodic (matching main melodic contour); (d) tonal (only pitch information); and (e) rhythmic (only song's rhythm).

RESULTS

The NH group surpassed all CI groups at identifying songs via melodic and tonal versions, but no significant differences emerged between the NH group and any CI group via full, a cappella, or rhythmic versions. Among the CI groups, no significant differences emerged via melodic or rhythmic versions, but bimodal users performed significantly better than bilateral users via the tonal version. Chronological age and duration of CI use correlated significantly with identification via the rhythmic version.

CONCLUSION

Bimodal users showed an advantage in identifying songs in the tonal version through use of complementary information.

Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise

The aim of the present study was to compare the ability of cochlear implant (CI) recipients to recognise speech prosody in the presence of speech-weighted noise to their ability to recognise vowels in the same test paradigm and listening condition. All test materials were recorded from four different speakers (two male, two female). Two prosody recognition tasks were developed, both using single words as stimuli. The first task involved a question/statement distinction, while the second task required listeners to make a judgement about the speaker's attitude. Vowel recognition tests were conducted using vowel pairs selected on the basis of specific acoustic cues (frequencies of the first two formants and duration). Ten CI users and ten normal-hearing controls were tested in both quiet and an adaptive noise condition, using a two-alternative forced-choice test paradigm for all the tests. Results indicated that vowel recognition was significantly better than prosody recognition in both listener groups in both quiet and noise, and that question/statement discrimination was the most difficult task for CI listeners in noise. Data from acoustic analyses were used to interpret differences in performance on different tasks and with different speakers.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

As a result of this activity, readers will be able to (1) describe suitable methods for comparing vowel and prosody perception in noise, (2) compare performance on vowel and prosody perception tasks in quiet in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant recipients, (3) compare performance on vowel and prosody perception tasks in noise in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant recipients and (4) relate performance on prosody tasks in quiet to performance on these tasks in noise.