The Effect of Interaural Mismatches on Contralateral Unmasking With Single-Sided Vocoders

The temporal mismatch across listening sides affects cortical auditory evoked responses in normal hearing listeners and cochlear implant users with contralateral acoustic hearing

Combining a cochlear implant with contralateral acoustic hearing typically enhances speech understanding, although this improvement varies among CI users and can lead to an interference effect. This variability may be associated with the effectiveness of the integration between electric and acoustic stimulation, which might be affected by the temporal mismatch between the two listening sides. Finding methods to compensate for the temporal mismatch might contribute to the optimal adjustment of bimodal devices and to improve hearing in CI users with contralateral acoustic hearing. The current study investigates cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) in normal hearing listeners (NH) and CI users with contralateral acoustic hearing. In NH, the amplitude of the N1 peak and the maximum phase locking value (PLV) were analyzed under monaural, binaural, and binaural temporally mismatched conditions. In CI users, CAEPs were measured when listening with CI only (CIS_only), acoustically only (AS_only) and with both sides together (CIS+AS). When listening with CIS+AS, various interaural delays were introduced between the electric and acoustic stimuli. In NH listeners, interaural temporal mismatch resulted in decreased N1 amplitude and PLV. Moreover, PLV is suggested as a more sensitive measure to investigate the integration of information between the two listening sides. CI users showed varied N1 latencies between the AS_only and CIS_only listening conditions, with increased N1 amplitude when the temporal mismatch was compensated. A tendency towards increased PLV was also observed, however, to a lesser extent than in NH listeners, suggesting a limited integration between electric and acoustic stimulation. This work highlights the potential of CAEPs measurement to investigate cortical processing of the information between two listening sides in NH and bimodal CI users.

A level adjusted cochlear frequency-to-place map for estimating tonotopic frequency mismatch with a cochlear implant

Objectives

To provide a level-adjusted correction to the current standard relating anatomical cochlear place to characteristic frequency in humans, and to re-evaluate anatomical frequency mismatch in cochlear implant (CI) recipients considering this correction. It is hypothesized that a level-adjusted place-frequency function may represent a more accurate tonotopic benchmark for CIs in comparison to the current standard.

Design

The present analytical study compiled data from fifteen previous animal studies that reported iso-intensity responses from cochlear structures at different stimulation levels. Extracted outcome measures were characteristic frequencies and centroid-based best frequencies at 70 dB SPL input from 47 specimens spanning a broad range of cochlear locations. A simple relationship was used to transform these measures to human estimates of characteristic and best frequencies, and non-linear regression was applied to these estimates to determine how the standard human place-frequency function should be adjusted to reflect best frequency rather than characteristic frequency. The proposed level-adjusted correction was then compared to average place-frequency positions of commonly used CI devices when programmed with clinical settings.

Results

The present study showed that the best frequency at 70 dB SPL (BF70) tends to shift away from characteristic frequency (CF). The amount of shift was statistically significant (signed-rank test z = 5.143, p < 0.001), but the amount and direction of shift depended on cochlear location. At cochlear locations up to 600° from the base, BF70 shifted downwards in frequency relative to CF by about 4 semitones on average. Beyond 600° from the base, BF70 shifted upwards in frequency relative to CF by about 6 semitones on average. In terms of spread (90% prediction interval), the amount of shift between CF and BF70 varied from relatively no shift to nearly an octave of shift. With the new level-adjusted frequency-place function, the amount of anatomical frequency mismatch for devices programmed with standard of care settings is less extreme than originally thought, and may be nonexistent for all but the most apical electrodes.

Conclusions

The present study validates the current standard for relating cochlear place to characteristic frequency, and introduces a level-adjusted correction for how best frequency shifts away from characteristic frequency at moderately loud stimulation levels. This correction may represent a more accurate tonotopic reference for CIs. To the extent that it does, its implementation may potentially enhance perceptual accommodation and speech understanding in CI users, thereby improving CI outcomes and contributing to advancements in the programming and clinical management of CIs.

Electrocochleography-Based Tonotopic Map: II. Frequency-to-Place Mismatch Impacts Speech-Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients

OBJECTIVES

Modern cochlear implants (CIs) use varying-length electrode arrays inserted at varying insertion angles within variably sized cochleae. Thus, there exists an opportunity to enhance CI performance, particularly in postlinguistic adults, by optimizing the frequency-to-place allocation for electrical stimulation, thereby minimizing the need for central adaptation and plasticity. There has been interest in applying Greenwood or Stakhovskaya et al. function (describing the tonotopic map) to postoperative imaging of electrodes to improve frequency allocation and place coding. Acoustically-evoked electrocochleography (ECochG) allows for electrophysiologic best-frequency (BF) determination of CI electrodes and the potential for creating a personalized frequency allocation function. The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between early speech-perception performance and frequency-to-place mismatch.

DESIGN

This retrospective study included 50 patients who received a slim perimodiolar electrode array. Following electrode insertion, five acoustic pure-tone stimuli ranging from 0.25 to 2 kHz were presented, and electrophysiological measurements were collected across all 22 electrode contacts. Cochlear microphonic tuning curves were subsequently generated for each stimulus frequency to ascertain the BF electrode or the location corresponding to the maximum response amplitude. Subsequently, we calculated the difference between the stimulus frequency and the patient's CI map's actual frequency allocation at each BF electrode, reflecting the frequency-to-place mismatch. BF electrocochleography-total response (BF-ECochG-TR), a measure of cochlear health, was also evaluated for each subject to control for the known impact of this measure on performance.

RESULTS

Our findings showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.51; 95% confidence interval: 0.23 to 0.76) between the cumulative frequency-to-place mismatch, as determined using the ECochG-derived BF map (utilizing 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz), and 3-month performance on consonant-nucleus-consonant words (N = 38). Larger positive mismatches, shifted basal from the BF map, led to enhanced speech perception. Incorporating BF-ECochG-TR, total mismatch, and their interaction in a multivariate model explained 62% of the variance in consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores at 3 months. BF-ECochG-TR as a standalone predictor tended to overestimate performance for subjects with larger negative total mismatches and underestimated the performance for those with larger positive total mismatches. Neither cochlear diameter, number of cochlear turns, nor apical insertion angle accounted for the variability in total mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of ECochG-BF derived tonotopic electrode maps to the frequency allocation tables reveals substantial mismatch, explaining 26.0% of the variability in CI performance in quiet. Closer examination of the mismatch shows that basally shifted maps at high frequencies demonstrate superior performance at 3 months compared with those with apically shifted maps (toward Greenwood and Stakhovskaya et al.). The implications of these results suggest that electrophysiological-based frequency reallocation might lead to enhanced speech-perception performance, especially when compared with conventional manufacturer maps or anatomic-based mapping strategies. Future research, exploring the prospective use of ECochG-based mapping techniques for frequency allocation is underway.

Auditory, Visual, and Cognitive Abilities in Normal-Hearing Adults, Hearing Aid Users, and Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVES

Speech understanding is considered a bimodal and bidirectional process, whereby visual information (i.e., speechreading) and also cognitive functions (i.e., top-down processes) are involved. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is twofold: (1) to investigate the auditory (A), visual (V), and cognitive (C) abilities in normal-hearing individuals, hearing aid (HA) users, and cochlear implant (CI) users, and (2) to determine an auditory, visual, cognitive (AVC)-profile providing a comprehensive overview of a person's speech processing abilities, containing a broader variety of factors involved in speech understanding.

DESIGN

Three matched groups of subjects participated in this study: (1) 31 normal-hearing adults (mean age = 58.76), (2) 31 adults with moderate to severe hearing loss using HAs (mean age = 59.31), (3) 31 adults with a severe to profound hearing loss using a CI (mean age = 58.86). The audiological assessments consisted of pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry in quiet and in noise. For evaluation of the (audio-) visual speech processing abilities, the Test for (Audio) Visual Speech perception was used. The cognitive test battery consisted of the letter-number sequencing task, the letter detection test, and an auditory Stroop test, measuring working memory and processing speed, selective attention, and cognitive flexibility and inhibition, respectively. Differences between the three groups were examined using a one-way analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis test, depending on the normality of the variables. Furthermore, a principal component analysis was conducted to determine the AVC-profile.

RESULTS

Normal-hearing individuals scored better for both auditory, and cognitive abilities compared to HA users and CI users, listening in a best aided condition. No significant differences were found for speech understanding in a visual condition, despite a larger audiovisual gain for the HA users and CI users. Furthermore, an AVC-profile was composed based on the different auditory, visual, and cognitive assessments. On the basis of that profile, it is possible to determine one comprehensive score for auditory, visual, and cognitive functioning. In the future, these scores could be used in auditory rehabilitation to determine specific strengths and weaknesses per individual patient for the different abilities related to the process of speech understanding in daily life.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested to evaluate individuals with hearing loss from a broader perspective, considering more than only the typical auditory abilities. Also, cognitive and visual abilities are important to take into account to have a more complete overview of the speech understanding abilities in daily life.

Hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation with anatomic or default frequency mapping in postlingual deafness adults

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different mapping procedures based on anatomic or default frequency distribution in postlingual deafness adults who underwent cochlear implantation (CI).

METHODS

Forty-eight adults with postlingual deafness who underwent CI (MED-EL) from January 2021 to May 2022 in our hospital were prospectively recruited. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups (the anatomic group and the default group). Postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans were evaluated with Otoplan® to determine the angular insertion depth (AID) and the specific locations of the intracochlear electrodes. Anatomic maps were imported into MAESTRO 9.0 software (MED-EL) for anatomy-based fitting for anatomic group, while default mapping program was set up for the default group. Hearing thresholds, Speech Recognition Scores (SRS), and subjects' auditory and musical abilities were evaluated 1 year after using the CI. Differences were determined in two groups using Stata statistical software, with significance defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

SRS under noisy conditions was significantly greater for anatomic group than the default group (p = 0.02). Under quiet conditions, however, mean hearing thresholds (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and SRS did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.07). Modified questionnaires showed that auditory (p = 0.02) and musical (p = 0.01) quality were significantly better following the anatomic mapping than the default procedure.

CONCLUSION

CI program based on the anatomic distribution may bring better SRS under noise conditions as well as better auditory and musical qualities than based on the default frequency distribution.

Comparison of speech perception in bimodal cochlear implant patients with respect to the cochlear coverage

BACKGROUND

The hearing success of patients with bimodal fitting, utilizing both a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA), varies considerably: While some patients benefit from bimodal CI and HA, others do not.

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study aimed to investigate speech perception in bimodally fitted patients and compare it with the cochlear coverage (CC).

METHODS

The CC was calculated with the OTOPLAN software, measuring the cochlear duct length on temporal bone CT scans of 39 patients retrospectively. The patients were categorized into two groups: CC ≤ 65% (CC500) and CC > 65% (CC600). Monaural speech intelligibility for monosyllables at a sound pressure level (SPL) of 65 dB in a free-field setting was assessed before and after CI at various time points. The two groups, one with preoperative HA and one with postoperative CI, were compared. Additionally, speech intelligibility was correlated with CC in the entire cohort before CI and at the last available follow-up (last observation time, LOT).

RESULTS

Overall, there was no significant difference in speech intelligibility between CC500 and CC600 patients, with both groups demonstrating a consistent improvement after implantation. While CC600 patients tended to exhibit earlier improvement in speech intelligibility, CC500 patients showed a slower initial improvement within the first 3 months but demonstrated a steeper learning curve thereafter. At LOT, the two patient groups converged, with no significant differences in expected speech intelligibility. There was no significant relationship between unimodal/unilateral free-field speech intelligibility and CC. Interestingly, patients with a CC of 70-75% achieved the highest speech intelligibility.

CONCLUSION

Despite of the lack of a significant correlation between CC and speech perception, patients appeared to reach their maximum in unimodal/unilateral speech perception primarily at a coverage level of 70-75%. Nevertheless, further investigation is warranted, as CC500 was associated with shorter cochlear duct length, and different types of electrodes were used in both groups.

Impact of processing-latency induced interaural delay and level discrepancy on sensitivity to interaural level differences in cochlear implant users

PURPOSE

This study investigated whether an interaural delay, e.g. caused by the processing latency of a hearing device, can affect sensitivity to interaural level differences (ILDs) in normal hearing subjects or cochlear implant (CI) users with contralateral normal hearing (SSD-CI).

METHODS

Sensitivity to ILD was measured in 10 SSD-CI subjects and in 24 normal hearing subjects. The stimulus was a noise burst presented via headphones and via a direct cable connection (CI). ILD sensitivity was measured for different interaural delays in the range induced by hearing devices. ILD sensitivity was correlated with results obtained in a sound localization task using seven loudspeakers in the frontal horizontal plane.

RESULTS

In the normal hearing subjects the sensitivity to interaural level differences deteriorated significantly with increasing interaural delays. In the CI group, no significant effect of interaural delays on ILD sensitivity was found. The NH subjects were significantly more sensitive to ILDs. The mean localization error in the CI group was 10.8° higher than in the normal hearing group. No correlation between sound localization ability and ILD sensitivity was found.

CONCLUSION

Interaural delays influence the perception of ILDs. For normal hearing subjects a significant decrement in sensitivity to ILD was measured. The effect could not be confirmed in the tested SSD-CI group, probably due to a small subject group with large variations. The temporal matching of the two sides may be beneficial for ILD processing and thus sound localization for CI patients. However, further studies are needed for verification.

Effects of spectral smearing on speech understanding and masking release in simulated bilateral cochlear implants

Differences in spectro-temporal degradation may explain some variability in cochlear implant users' speech outcomes. The present study employs vocoder simulations on listeners with typical hearing to evaluate how differences in degree of channel interaction across ears affects spatial speech recognition. Speech recognition thresholds and spatial release from masking were measured in 16 normal-hearing subjects listening to simulated bilateral cochlear implants. 16-channel sine-vocoded speech simulated limited, broad, or mixed channel interaction, in dichotic and diotic target-masker conditions, across ears. Thresholds were highest with broad channel interaction in both ears but improved when interaction decreased in one ear and again in both ears. Masking release was apparent across conditions. Results from this simulation study on listeners with typical hearing show that channel interaction may impact speech recognition more than masking release, and may have implications for the effects of channel interaction on cochlear implant users' speech recognition outcomes.

Postoperative optimization of cochlear implantation for single sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of methods for improving postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing performance in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed, Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and narrative synthesis. English language studies of adult CI recipients with SSD and AHL reporting a postoperative intervention and comparative audiometric data pertaining to speech in noise, speech in quiet and sound localization were included.

RESULTS

32 studies met criteria for full text review and 6 (n = 81) met final inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as: formal auditory training, programming techniques, or hardware optimization. Formal auditory training (n = 10) found no objective improvement in hearing outcomes. Experimental CI maps did not improve audiologic outcomes (n = 9). Programed CI signal delays to improve synchronization demonstrated improved sound localization (n = 12). Hardware optimization, including multidirectional (n = 29) and remote (n = 11) microphones, improved sound localization and speech in noise, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Few studies meeting inclusion criteria and small sample sizes highlight the need for further study. Formal auditory training did not appear to improve hearing outcomes. Programming techniques, such as CI signal delay, and hardware optimization, such as multidirectional and remote microphones, show promise to improve outcomes for SSD and AHL CI users.

[Speech perception as a function of cochlear coverage-comparison in bimodally hearing cochlear implant patients. German version]

BACKGROUND

Hearing success in bimodally hearing patients with a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) exhibits different results: while some benefit from bimodal CI and HA, others do not.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate hearing success in terms of speech perception in bimodally fitted patients in relation to the cochlear coverage (CC) of the CI electrodes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the OTOPLAN software (CAScination AG, Bern, Switzerland), CC was retrospectively measured from CT scans of the temporal bone of 39 patients, who were then categorized into two groups: CC ≤ 65% (CC⁵⁰⁰) and CC > 65% (CC⁶⁰⁰). Monaural speech intelligibility for monosyllables at a sound pressure level (SPL) of 65 dB in open field was assessed at various timepoints, preoperatively with HA and postoperatively with CI, and compared between the groups. In addition, speech intelligibility was correlated with CC in the entire cohort before surgery and during follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

Overall, no significant differences in speech intelligibility were found between CC⁵⁰⁰ and CC⁶⁰⁰ patients at any of the FU timepoints. However, both CC⁵⁰⁰ and CC⁶⁰⁰ patients showed a steady improvement in speech intelligibility after implantation. While CC⁶⁰⁰ patients tended to show an earlier improvement in speech intelligibility, CC⁵⁰⁰ patients tended to show a slower improvement during the first 3 months and a steeper learning curve thereafter. The two patient groups converged during FU, with no significant differences in speech intelligibility. There was no significant relationship between unimodal/unilateral free-field speech intelligibility and CC. However, patients with a CC of 70-75% achieved maximum speech intelligibility.

CONCLUSION

Despite a nonsignificant correlation between CC and speech discrimination, patients seem to reach their maximum in unimodal/unilateral speech understanding mainly at 70-75% coverage. However, there is room for further investigation, as CC⁵⁰⁰ was associated with a shorter cochlear duct length (CDL), and long and very long electrodes were used in both groups.

[Interaural stimulation timing mismatch in listeners provided with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid : A review focusing on quantification and compensation]

Bimodal provision of patients with asymmetric hearing loss with a hearing aid ipsilaterally and a cochlear implant (CI) contralaterally is probably the most complicated type of CI provision due to a variety of inherent variables. This review article presents all the systematic interaural mismatches between electric and acoustic stimulation that can occur in bimodal listeners. One of these mismatches is the interaural latency offset, i.e., the time difference of activation of the auditory nerve by acoustic and electric stimulation. Methods for quantifying this offset are presented by registering electrically and acoustically evoked potentials and measuring processing delays in the devices. Technical compensation of the interaural latency offset and its positive effect on sound localization ability in bimodal listeners is also described. Finally, most recent findings are discussed which may explain why compensation of the interaural latency offset does not improve speech understanding in noise in bimodal listeners.

Spatial speech-in-noise performance in simulated single-sided deaf and bimodal cochlear implant users in comparison with real patients

OBJECTIVE

Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in spatial scenarios were measured in simulated cochlear implant (CI) listeners with either contralateral normal hearing, or aided hearing impairment (bimodal), and compared to SRTs of real patients, who were measured using the exact same paradigm, to assess goodness of simulation.

DESIGN

CI listening was simulated using a vocoder incorporating actual CI signal processing and physiologic details of electric stimulation on one side. Unprocessed signals or simulation of aided moderate or profound hearing impairment was used contralaterally. Three spatial speech-in-noise scenarios were tested using virtual acoustics to assess spatial release from masking (SRM) and combined benefit.

STUDY SAMPLE

Eleven normal-hearing listeners participated in the experiment.

RESULTS

For contralateral normal and aided moderately impaired hearing, bilaterally assessed SRTs were not statistically different from unilateral SRTs of the better ear, indicating "better-ear-listening". Combined benefit was only found for contralateral profound impaired hearing. As in patients, SRM was highest for contralateral normal hearing and decreased systematically with more severe simulated impairment. Comparison to actual patients showed good reproduction of SRTs, SRM, and better-ear-listening.

CONCLUSIONS

The simulations reproduced better-ear-listening as in patients and suggest that combined benefit in spatial scenes predominantly occurs when both ears show poor speech-in-noise performance.

Computed-Tomography Estimates of Interaural Mismatch in Insertion Depth and Scalar Location in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users

HYPOTHESIS

Bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) users will have a range of interaural insertion-depth mismatch because of different array placement or characteristics. Mismatch will be larger for electrodes located near the apex or outside scala tympani, or for arrays that are a mix of precurved and straight types.

BACKGROUND

Brainstem superior olivary-complex neurons are exquisitely sensitive to interaural-difference cues for sound localization. Because these neurons rely on interaurally place-of-stimulation-matched inputs, interaural insertion-depth or scalar-location differences for BI-CI users could cause interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch that impairs binaural abilities.

METHODS

Insertion depths and scalar locations were calculated from temporal-bone computed-tomography scans for 107 BI-CI users (27 Advanced Bionics, 62 Cochlear, 18 MED-EL).

RESULTS

Median interaural insertion-depth mismatch was 23.4 degrees or 1.3 mm. Mismatch in the estimated clinically relevant range expected to impair binaural processing (>75 degrees or 3 mm) occurred for 13 to 19% of electrode pairs overall, and for at least three electrode pairs for 23 to 37% of subjects. There was a significant three-way interaction between insertion depth, scalar location, and array type. Interaural insertion-depth mismatch was largest for apical electrodes, for electrode pairs in two different scala, and for arrays that were both-precurved.

CONCLUSION

Average BI-CI interaural insertion-depth mismatch was small; however, large interaural insertion-depth mismatch-with the potential to degrade spatial hearing-occurred frequently enough to warrant attention. For new BICI users, improved surgical techniques to avoid interaural insertion-depth and scalar mismatch are recommended. For existing BI-CI users with interaural insertion-depth mismatch, interaural alignment of clinical frequency tables might reduce negative spatial-hearing consequences.

No Benefit of Deriving Cochlear-Implant Maps From Binaural Temporal-Envelope Sensitivity for Speech Perception or Spatial Hearing Under Single-Sided Deafness

OBJECTIVES

This study tested whether speech perception and spatial acuity improved in people with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant (SSD+CI) when the frequency allocation table (FAT) of the CI was adjusted to optimize frequency-dependent sensitivity to binaural disparities.

DESIGN

Nine SSD+CI listeners with at least 6 months of CI listening experience participated. Individual experimental FATs were created to best match the frequency-to-place mapping across ears using either sensitivity to binaural temporal-envelope disparities or estimated insertion depth. Spatial localization ability was measured, along with speech perception in spatially collocated or separated noise, first with the clinical FATs and then with the experimental FATs acutely and at 2-month intervals for 6 months. Listeners then returned to the clinical FATs and were retested acutely and after 1 month to control for long-term learning effects.

RESULTS

The experimental FAT varied between listeners, differing by an average of 0.15 octaves from the clinical FAT. No significant differences in performance were observed in any of the measures between the experimental FAT after 6 months and the clinical FAT one month later, and no clear relationship was found between the size of the frequency-allocation shift and perceptual changes.

CONCLUSION

Adjusting the FAT to optimize sensitivity to interaural temporal-envelope disparities did not improve localization or speech perception. The clinical frequency-to-place alignment may already be sufficient, given the inherently poor spectral resolution of CIs. Alternatively, other factors, such as temporal misalignment between the two ears, may need to be addressed before any benefits of spectral alignment can be observed.

Frequency Fitting Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithm in Cochlear Implant Users with Bimodal Binaural Hearing

Optimizing hearing in patients with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral acoustic hearing is a challenge. Evolutionary algorithms (EA) can explore a large set of potential solutions in a stochastic manner to approach the optimum of a minimization problem. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an EA-based protocol to modify the default frequency settings of a MAP (fMAP) of the CI in patients with bimodal hearing. Methods: This monocentric prospective study included 27 adult CI users (with post-lingual deafness and contralateral functional hearing). A fitting program based on EA was developed to approach the best fMAP. Generated fMAPs were tested by speech recognition (word recognition score, WRS) in noise and free-field-like conditions. By combining these first fMAPs and adding some random changes, a total of 13 fMAPs over 3 generations were produced. Participants were evaluated before and 45 to 60 days after the fitting by WRS in noise and questionnaires on global sound quality and music perception in bimodal binaural conditions. Results: WRS in noise improved with the EA-based fitting in comparison to the default fMAP (41.67 ± 9.70% versus 64.63 ± 16.34%, respectively, p = 0.0001, signed-rank test). The global sound quality and music perception were also improved, as judged by ratings on questionnaires and scales. Finally, most patients chose to keep the new fitting definitively. Conclusions: By modifying the default fMAPs, the EA improved the speech discrimination in noise and the sound quality in bimodal binaural conditions.

Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf

When listening with a cochlear implant through one ear and acoustically through the other, binaural benefits and spatial hearing abilities are generally poorer than in other bilaterally stimulated configurations. With the working hypothesis that binaural neurons require interaurally matched inputs, we review causes for mismatch, their perceptual consequences, and experimental methods for mismatch measurements. The focus is on the three primary interaural dimensions of latency, frequency, and level. Often, the mismatch is not constant, but rather highly stimulus-dependent. We report on mismatch compensation strategies, taking into consideration the specific needs of the respective patient groups. Practical challenges typically faced by audiologists in the proposed fitting procedure are discussed. While improvement in certain areas (e.g., speaker localization) is definitely achievable, a more comprehensive mismatch compensation is a very ambitious endeavor. Even in the hypothetical ideal fitting case, performance is not expected to exceed that of a good bilateral cochlear implant user.

Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users

Bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or a CI for single-sided deafness (SSD-CI; one normally functioning acoustic ear) can partially restore spatial-hearing abilities, including sound localization and speech understanding in noise. For these populations, however, interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can occur and thus diminish binaural sensitivity that relies on interaurally frequency-matched neurons. This study examined whether plasticity-reorganization of central neural pathways over time-can compensate for peripheral interaural place mismatch. We hypothesized differential plasticity across two systems: none for binaural processing but adaptation for pitch perception toward frequencies delivered by the specific electrodes. Interaural place mismatch was evaluated in 19 BI-CI and 23 SSD-CI human subjects (both sexes) using binaural processing (interaural-time-difference discrimination with simultaneous bilateral stimulation), pitch perception (pitch ranking for single electrodes or acoustic tones with sequential bilateral stimulation), and physical electrode-location estimates from computed-tomography (CT) scans. On average, CT scans revealed relatively little BI-CI interaural place mismatch (26° insertion-angle mismatch) but a relatively large SSD-CI mismatch, particularly at low frequencies (166° for an electrode tuned to 300 Hz, decreasing to 14° at 7000 Hz). For BI-CI subjects, the three metrics were in agreement because there was little mismatch. For SSD-CI subjects, binaural and CT measurements were in agreement, suggesting little binaural-system plasticity induced by mismatch. The pitch measurements disagreed with binaural and CT measurements, suggesting place-pitch plasticity or a procedural bias. These results suggest that reducing interaural place mismatch and potentially improving binaural processing by reprogramming the CI frequency allocation would be better done using CT-scan than pitch information.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Electrode-array placement for cochlear implants (bionic prostheses that partially restore hearing) does not explicitly align neural representations of frequency information. The resulting interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can diminish spatial-hearing abilities. In this study, adults with two cochlear implants showed reasonable interaural alignment, whereas those with one cochlear implant but normal hearing in the other ear often showed mismatch. In cases of mismatch, binaural sensitivity was best when the same cochlear locations were stimulated in both ears, suggesting that binaural brainstem pathways do not experience plasticity to compensate for mismatch. In contrast, interaurally pitch-matched electrodes deviated from cochlear-location estimates and did not optimize binaural sensitivity. Clinical correction of interaural place mismatch using binaural or computed-tomography (but not pitch) information may improve spatial-hearing benefits.

Reducing interaural tonotopic mismatch preserves binaural unmasking in cochlear implant simulations of single-sided deafness

Binaural unmasking, a key feature of normal binaural hearing, can refer to the improved intelligibility of masked speech by adding masking that facilitates perceived separation of target and masker. A question relevant for cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness (SSD-CI) is whether binaural unmasking can still be achieved if the additional masking is spectrally degraded and shifted. CIs restore some aspects of binaural hearing to these listeners, although binaural unmasking remains limited. Notably, these listeners may experience a mismatch between the frequency information perceived through the CI and that perceived by their normal hearing ear. Employing acoustic simulations of SSD-CI with normal hearing listeners, the present study confirms a previous simulation study that binaural unmasking is severely limited when interaural frequency mismatch between the input frequency range and simulated place of stimulation exceeds 1-2 mm. The present study also shows that binaural unmasking is largely retained when the input frequency range is adjusted to match simulated place of stimulation, even at the expense of removing low-frequency information. This result bears implications for the mechanisms driving the type of binaural unmasking of the present study and for mapping the frequency range of the CI speech processor in SSD-CI users.

Cochlear Implantation in the Setting of Menière's Disease After Labyrinthectomy: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Characterize the speech recognition and sound source localization of patients with unilateral Menière's disease who undergo labyrinthectomy for vertigo control with simultaneous or sequential cochlear implantation.

DATABASES REVIEWED

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.

METHODS

The search was performed on May 6, 2020. The keywords utilized included: "Menière's disease AND cochlear implant;" "cochlear implant AND single sided deafness;" "cochlear implant AND vestibular;" and "labyrinthectomy AND cochlear implant." Manuscripts published in English with a publication date after 1995 that assessed adult subjects (≥18 years of age) were included for review. Subjects must have been diagnosed with Menière's disease unilaterally and underwent labyrinthectomy with simultaneous or sequential cochlear implantation. Reported outcomes with cochlear implant (CI) use included speech recognition as measured with the consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word test and/or sound source localization reported in root-mean squared (RMS) error. The method of data collection and study type were recorded to assess level of evidence. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

RESULTS

Data from 14 CI recipients met the criteria for inclusion. Word recognition comparisons between the preoperative interval and a postactivation interval demonstrated a significant improvement with the CI (p = 0.014), with an average improvement of 23% (range -16 to 50%). Sound source localization postoperatively with the CI demonstrated an average RMS error of 26° (SD 6.8, range 18.7-43.1°) compared to the 42° (SD 19.1, range 18-85°) in the preoperative or CI off condition, these two conditions were not statistically different (p = 0.148).

CONCLUSION

Cochlear implantation and labyrinthectomy in adult patients with Menière's disease can support improvements in speech recognition and sound source localization for some CI users, though observed performance may be poorer than traditional CI candidates.

Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear Implant Sound-Localization Behavior With Multiple Concurrent Sources

OBJECTIVES

For listeners with one deaf ear and the other ear with normal/near-normal hearing (single-sided deafness [SSD]) or moderate hearing loss (asymmetric hearing loss), cochlear implants (CIs) can improve speech understanding in noise and sound-source localization. Previous SSD-CI localization studies have used a single source with artificial sounds such as clicks or random noise. While this approach provides insights regarding the auditory cues that facilitate localization, it does not capture the complex nature of localization behavior in real-world environments. This study examined SSD-CI sound localization in a complex scenario where a target sound was added to or removed from a mixture of other environmental sounds, while tracking head movements to assess behavioral strategy.

DESIGN

Eleven CI users with normal hearing or moderate hearing loss in the contralateral ear completed a sound-localization task in monaural (CI-OFF) and bilateral (CI-ON) configurations. Ten of the listeners were also tested before CI activation to examine longitudinal effects. Two-second environmental sound samples, looped to create 4- or 10-sec trials, were presented in a spherical array of 26 loudspeakers encompassing ±144° azimuth and ±30° elevation at a 1-m radius. The target sound was presented alone (localize task) or concurrently with one or three additional sources presented to different loudspeakers, with the target cued by being added to (Add) or removed from (Rem) the mixture after 6 sec. A head-mounted tracker recorded movements in six dimensions (three for location, three for orientation). Mixed-model regression was used to examine target sound-identification accuracy, localization accuracy, and head movement. Angular and translational head movements were analyzed both before and after the target was switched on or off.

RESULTS

Listeners showed improved localization accuracy in the CI-ON configuration, but there was no interaction with test condition and no effect of the CI on sound-identification performance. Although high-frequency hearing loss in the unimplanted ear reduced localization accuracy and sound-identification performance, the magnitude of the CI localization benefit was independent of hearing loss. The CI reduced the magnitude of gross head movements used during the task in the azimuthal rotation and translational dimensions, both while the target sound was present (in all conditions) and during the anticipatory period before the target was switched on (in the Add condition). There was no change in pre- versus post-activation CI-OFF performance.

CONCLUSIONS

These results extend previous findings, demonstrating a CI localization benefit in a complex listening scenario that includes environmental and behavioral elements encountered in everyday listening conditions. The CI also reduced the magnitude of gross head movements used to perform the task. This was the case even before the target sound was added to the mixture. This suggests that a CI can reduce the need for physical movement both in anticipation of an upcoming sound event and while actively localizing the target sound. Overall, these results show that for SSD listeners, a CI can improve localization in a complex sound environment and reduce the amount of physical movement used.

Acoustic Hearing Can Interfere With Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear-Implant Speech Perception

OBJECTIVES

Cochlear implants (CIs) restore some spatial advantages for speech understanding in noise to individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). In addition to a head-shadow advantage when the CI ear has a better signal-to-noise ratio, a CI can also provide a binaural advantage in certain situations, facilitating the perceptual separation of spatially separated concurrent voices. While some bilateral-CI listeners show a similar binaural advantage, bilateral-CI listeners with relatively large asymmetries in monaural speech understanding can instead experience contralateral speech interference. Based on the interference previously observed for asymmetric bilateral-CI listeners, this study tested the hypothesis that in a multiple-talker situation, the acoustic ear would interfere with rather than improve CI speech understanding for SSD-CI listeners.

DESIGN

Experiment 1 measured CI-ear speech understanding in the presence of competing speech or noise for 13 SSD-CI listeners. Target speech from the closed-set coordinate response-measure corpus was presented to the CI ear along with one same-gender competing talker or stationary noise at target-to-masker ratios between -8 and 20 dB. The acoustic ear was presented with silence (monaural condition) or with a copy of the competing speech or noise (bilateral condition). Experiment 2 tested a subset of 6 listeners in the reverse configuration for which SSD-CI listeners have previously shown a binaural benefit (target and competing speech presented to the acoustic ear; silence or competing speech presented to the CI ear). Experiment 3 examined the possible influence of a methodological difference between experiments 1 and 2: whether the competing talker spoke keywords that were inside or outside the response set. For each experiment, the data were analyzed using repeated-measures logistic regression. For experiment 1, a correlation analysis compared the difference between bilateral and monaural speech-understanding scores to several listener-specific factors: speech understanding in the CI ear, preimplantation duration of deafness, duration of CI experience, ear of deafness (left/right), acoustic-ear audiometric thresholds, and listener age.

RESULTS

In experiment 1, presenting a copy of the competing speech to the acoustic ear reduced CI speech-understanding scores for target-to-masker ratios ≥4 dB. This interference effect was limited to competing-speech conditions and was not observed for a noise masker. There was dramatic intersubject variability in the magnitude of the interference (range: 1 to 43 rationalized arcsine units), which was found to be significantly correlated with listener age. The interference effect contrasted sharply with the reverse configuration (experiment 2), whereby presenting a copy of the competing speech to the contralateral CI ear significantly improved performance relative to monaural acoustic-ear performance. Keyword condition (experiment 3) did not influence the observed pattern of interference.

CONCLUSIONS

Most SSD-CI listeners experienced interference when they attended to the CI ear and competing speech was added to the acoustic ear, although there was a large amount of intersubject variability in the magnitude of the effect, with older listeners particularly susceptible to interference. While further research is needed to investigate these effects under free-field listening conditions, these results suggest that for certain spatial configurations in a multiple-talker situation, contralateral speech interference could reduce the benefit that an SSD-CI otherwise provides.

Effects of Spectral Resolution and Frequency Mismatch on Speech Understanding and Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Bilateral Cochlear Implants

OBJECTIVES

Due to interaural frequency mismatch, bilateral cochlear-implant (CI) users may be less able to take advantage of binaural cues that normal-hearing (NH) listeners use for spatial hearing, such as interaural time differences and interaural level differences. As such, bilateral CI users have difficulty segregating competing speech even when the target and competing talkers are spatially separated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of spectral resolution, tonotopic mismatch (the frequency mismatch between the acoustic center frequency assigned to CI electrode within an implanted ear relative to the expected spiral ganglion characteristic frequency), and interaural mismatch (differences in the degree of tonotopic mismatch in each ear) on speech understanding and spatial release from masking (SRM) in the presence of competing talkers in NH subjects listening to bilateral vocoder simulations.

DESIGN

During testing, both target and masker speech were presented in five-word sentences that had the same syntax but were not necessarily meaningful. The sentences were composed of five categories in fixed order (Name, Verb, Number, Color, and Clothes), each of which had 10 items, such that multiple sentences could be generated by randomly selecting a word from each category. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for the target sentence presented in competing speech maskers were measured. The target speech was delivered to both ears and the two speech maskers were delivered to (1) both ears (diotic masker), or (2) different ears (dichotic masker: one delivered to the left ear and the other delivered to the right ear). Stimuli included the unprocessed speech and four 16-channel sine-vocoder simulations with different interaural mismatch (0, 1, and 2 mm). SRM was calculated as the difference between the diotic and dichotic listening conditions.

RESULTS

With unprocessed speech, SRTs were 0.3 and -18.0 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. For the spectrally degraded speech with mild tonotopic mismatch and no interaural mismatch, SRTs were 5.6 and -2.0 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. When the tonotopic mismatch increased in both ears, SRTs worsened to 8.9 and 2.4 dB for the diotic and dichotic maskers, respectively. When the two ears had different tonotopic mismatch (e.g., there was interaural mismatch), the performance drop in SRTs was much larger for the dichotic than for the diotic masker. The largest SRM was observed with unprocessed speech (18.3 dB). With the CI simulations, SRM was significantly reduced to 7.6 dB even with mild tonotopic mismatch but no interaural mismatch; SRM was further reduced with increasing interaural mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that frequency resolution, tonotopic mismatch, and interaural mismatch have differential effects on speech understanding and SRM in simulation of bilateral CIs. Minimizing interaural mismatch may be critical to optimize binaural benefits and improve CI performance for competing speech, a typical listening environment. SRM (the difference in SRTs between diotic and dichotic maskers) may be a useful clinical tool to assess interaural frequency mismatch in bilateral CI users and to evaluate the benefits of optimization methods that minimize interaural mismatch.

Frequency-to-Place Mismatch: Characterizing Variability and the Influence on Speech Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients

OBJECTIVES

The spatial position of a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array affects the spectral cues provided to the recipient. Differences in cochlear size and array length lead to substantial variability in angular insertion depth (AID) across and within array types. For CI-alone users, the variability in AID results in varying degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch between the default electric frequency filters and cochlear place of stimulation. For electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users, default electric frequency filters also vary as a function of residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. The present study aimed to (1) investigate variability in AID associated with lateral wall arrays, (2) determine the subsequent frequency-to-place mismatch for CI-alone and EAS users mapped with default frequency filters, and (3) examine the relationship between early speech perception for CI-alone users and two aspects of electrode position: frequency-to-place mismatch and angular separation between neighboring contacts, a metric associated with spectral selectivity at the periphery.

DESIGN

One hundred one adult CI recipients (111 ears) with MED-EL Flex24 (24 mm), Flex28 (28 mm), and FlexSOFT/Standard (31.5 mm) arrays underwent postoperative computed tomography to determine AID. A subsequent comparison was made between AID, predicted spiral ganglion place frequencies, and the default frequency filters for CI-alone (n = 84) and EAS users (n = 27). For CI-alone users with complete insertions who listened with maps fit with the default frequency filters (n = 48), frequency-to-place mismatch was quantified at 1500 Hz and angular separation between neighboring contacts was determined for electrodes in the 1 to 2 kHz region. Multiple linear regression was used to examine how frequency-to-place mismatch and angular separation of contacts influence consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) scores through 6 months postactivation.

RESULTS

For CI recipients with complete insertions (n = 106, 95.5%), the AID (mean ± standard deviation) of the most apical contact was 428° ± 34.3° for Flex24 (n = 11), 558° ± 65.4° for Flex28 (n = 48), and 636° ± 42.9° for FlexSOFT/Standard (n = 47) arrays. For CI-alone users, default frequency filters aligned closely with the spiral ganglion map for deeply inserted lateral wall arrays. For EAS users, default frequency filters produced a range of mismatches; absolute deviations of ≤ 6 semitones occurred in only 37% of cases. Participants with shallow insertions and minimal or no residual hearing experienced the greatest mismatch. For CI-alone users, both smaller frequency-to-place mismatch and greater angular separation between contacts were associated with better CNC scores during the initial 6 months of device use.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in frequency-to-place mismatch among CI-alone and EAS users with default frequency filters, even between individuals implanted with the same array. When using default frequency filters, mismatch can be minimized with longer lateral wall arrays and insertion depths that meet the edge frequency associated with residual hearing for CI-alone and EAS users, respectively. Smaller degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch and decreased peripheral masking due to more widely spaced contacts may independently support better speech perception with longer lateral wall arrays in CI-alone users.

Sound Localization Bias and Error in Bimodal Listeners Improve Instantaneously When the Device Delay Mismatch Is Reduced

Users of a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear, who are provided with a hearing aid (HA) in the contralateral ear, so-called bimodal listeners, are typically affected by a constant and relatively large interaural time delay offset due to differences in signal processing and differences in stimulation. For HA stimulation, the cochlear travelling wave delay is added to the processing delay, while for CI stimulation, the auditory nerve fibers are stimulated directly. In case of MED-EL CI systems in combination with different HA types, the CI stimulation precedes the acoustic HA stimulation by 3 to 10 ms. A self-designed, battery-powered, portable, and programmable delay line was applied to the CI to reduce the device delay mismatch in nine bimodal listeners. We used an A-B-B-A test design and determined if sound source localization improves when the device delay mismatch is reduced by delaying the CI stimulation by the HA processing delay (τ_HA). Results revealed that every subject in our group of nine bimodal listeners benefited from the approach. The root-mean-square error of sound localization improved significantly from 52.6° to 37.9°. The signed bias also improved significantly from 25.2° to 10.5°, with positive values indicating a bias toward the CI. Furthermore, two other delay values (τ_HA –1 ms and τ_HA +1 ms) were applied, and with the latter value, the signed bias was further reduced in some test subjects. We conclude that sound source localization accuracy in bimodal listeners improves instantaneously and sustainably when the device delay mismatch is reduced.

Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit

OBJECTIVES

Single-sided deafness cochlear-implant (SSD-CI) listeners and bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) listeners gain near-normal levels of head-shadow benefit but limited binaural benefits. One possible reason for these limited binaural benefits is that cochlear places of stimulation tend to be mismatched between the ears. SSD-CI and BI-CI patients might benefit from a binaural fitting that reallocates frequencies to reduce interaural place mismatch. However, this approach could reduce monaural speech recognition and head-shadow benefit by excluding low- or high-frequency information from one ear. This study examined how much frequency information can be excluded from a CI signal in the poorer-hearing ear without reducing head-shadow benefits and how these outcomes are influenced by interaural asymmetry in monaural speech recognition.

DESIGN

Speech-recognition thresholds for sentences in speech-shaped noise were measured for 6 adult SSD-CI listeners, 12 BI-CI listeners, and 9 normal-hearing listeners presented with vocoder simulations. Stimuli were presented using nonindividualized in-the-ear or behind-the-ear head-related impulse-response simulations with speech presented from a 70° azimuth (poorer-hearing side) and noise from 70° (better-hearing side), thereby yielding a better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the poorer-hearing ear. Head-shadow benefit was computed as the improvement in bilateral speech-recognition thresholds gained from enabling the CI in the poorer-hearing, better-SNR ear. High- or low-pass filtering was systematically applied to the head-related impulse-response-filtered stimuli presented to the poorer-hearing ear. For the SSD-CI listeners and SSD-vocoder simulations, only high-pass filtering was applied, because the CI frequency allocation would never need to be adjusted downward to frequency-match the ears. For the BI-CI listeners and BI-vocoder simulations, both low and high pass filtering were applied. The normal-hearing listeners were tested with two levels of performance to examine the effect of interaural asymmetry in monaural speech recognition (vocoder synthesis-filter slopes: 5 or 20 dB/octave).

RESULTS

Mean head-shadow benefit was smaller for the SSD-CI listeners (~7 dB) than for the BI-CI listeners (~14 dB). For SSD-CI listeners, frequencies <1236 Hz could be excluded; for BI-CI listeners, frequencies <886 or >3814 Hz could be excluded from the poorer-hearing ear without reducing head-shadow benefit. Bilateral performance showed greater immunity to filtering than monaural performance, with gradual changes in performance as a function of filter cutoff. Real and vocoder-simulated CI users with larger interaural asymmetry in monaural performance had less head-shadow benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The "exclusion frequency" ranges that could be removed without diminishing head-shadow benefit are interpreted in terms of low importance in the speech intelligibility index and a small head-shadow magnitude at low frequencies. Although groups and individuals with greater performance asymmetry gained less head-shadow benefit, the magnitudes of these factors did not predict the exclusion frequency range. Overall, these data suggest that for many SSD-CI and BI-CI listeners, the frequency allocation for the poorer-ear CI can be shifted substantially without sacrificing head-shadow benefit, at least for energetic maskers. Considering the two ears together as a single system may allow greater flexibility in discarding redundant frequency content from a CI in one ear when considering bilateral programming solutions aimed at reducing interaural frequency mismatch.

Residual Hearing Affects Contralateral Routing of Signals in Cochlear Implant Users

INTRODUCTION

Contralateral routing of signals (CROS) can be used to eliminate the head shadow effect. In unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users, CROS can be achieved with placement of a microphone on the contralateral ear, with the signal streamed to the CI ear. CROS was originally developed for unilateral CI users without any residual hearing in the nonimplanted ear. However, the criteria for implantation are becoming progressively looser, and the nonimplanted ear can have substantial residual hearing. In this study, we assessed how residual hearing in the contralateral ear influences CROS effectiveness in unilateral CI users.

METHODS

In a group of unilateral CI users (N = 17) with varying amounts of residual hearing, we deployed free-field speech tests to determine the effects of CROS on the speech reception threshold (SRT) in amplitude-modulated noise. We compared 2 spatial configurations: (1) speech presented to the CROS ear and noise to the CI ear (SCROSNCI) and (2) the reverse (SCINCROS).

RESULTS

Compared with the use of CI only, CROS improved the SRT by 6.4 dB on average in the SCROSNCI configuration. In the SCINCROS configuration, however, CROS deteriorated the SRT by 8.4 dB. The benefit and disadvantage of CROS both decreased significantly with the amount of residual hearing.

CONCLUSION

CROS users need careful instructions about the potential disadvantage when listening in conditions where the CROS ear mainly receives noise, especially if they have residual hearing in the contralateral ear. The CROS device should be turned off when it is on the noise side (SCINCROS). CI users with residual hearing in the CROS ear also should understand that contralateral amplification (i.e., a bimodal hearing solution) will yield better results than a CROS device. Unilateral CI users with no functional contralateral hearing should be considered the primary target population for a CROS device.

Effectiveness of Place-based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices

BACKGROUND

The default mapping procedure for electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) devices uses the cochlear implant recipient's unaided detection thresholds in the implanted ear to derive the acoustic settings and assign the lowest frequency filter of electric stimulation. Individual differences for speech recognition with EAS may be due to discrepancies between the electric frequency filters of individual electrode contacts and the cochlear place of stimulation, known as a frequency-to-place mismatch. Frequency-to-place mismatch of greater than 1/2 octave has been demonstrated in up to 60% of EAS users. Aligning the electric frequency filters via a place-based mapping procedure using postoperative imaging may improve speech recognition with EAS.

METHODS

Masked sentence recognition was evaluated for normal-hearing subjects (n = 17) listening with vocoder simulations of EAS, using a place-based map and a default map. Simulation parameters were based on audiometric and imaging data from a representative 24-mm electrode array recipient and EAS user. The place-based map aligned electric frequency filters with the cochlear place frequency, which introduced a gap between the simulated acoustic and electric output. The default map settings were derived from the clinical programming software and provided the full speech frequency range.

RESULTS

Masked sentence recognition was significantly better for simulated EAS with the place-based map as compared with the default map.

CONCLUSION

The simulated EAS place-based map supported better performance than the simulated EAS default map. This indicates that individualizing maps may improve performance in EAS users by helping them achieve better asymptotic performance earlier and mitigate the need for acclimatization.

A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users

Interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch for bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) listeners is often evaluated using pitch-comparison tasks that can be susceptible to procedural biases. Bias effects were compared for three sequential interaural pitch-comparison tasks in six BI-CI listeners using single-electrode direct stimulation. The reference (right ear) was a single basal, middle, or apical electrode. The comparison electrode (left ear) was chosen from one of three ranges: basal half, full array, or apical half. In Experiment 1 (discrimination), interaural pairs were chosen randomly (method of constant stimuli). In Experiment 2 (ranking), an efficient adaptive procedure rank ordered 3 reference and 6 or 11 comparison electrodes. In Experiment 3 (matching), listeners adjusted the comparison electrode to pitch match the reference. Each experiment was evaluated for testing-range bias (point of subjective equality [PSE] vs. comparison-range midpoint) and reference-electrode slope bias (PSE vs. reference electrode). Discrimination showed large biases for both metrics; matching showed a smaller but significant reference-electrode bias; ranking showed no significant biases in either dimension. Ranking and matching were also evaluated for starting-point bias (PSE vs. adaptive-track starting point), but neither showed significant effects. A response-distribution truncation model explained a nonsignificant bias for ranking but it could not fully explain the observed biases for discrimination or matching. It is concluded that (a) BI-CI interaural pitch comparisons are inconsistent across test methods; (b) biases must be evaluated in more than one dimension before accepting the results as valid; and (c) of the three methods tested, ranking was least susceptible to biases and therefore emerged as the optimal approach.

The impact of cochlear implant microphone settings on the binaural hearing of experienced cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear implantation has become a well-accepted treatment option for people with single-sided deafness (SSD) and has become a clinical standard in many countries. A cochlear implant (CI) is the only device which restores binaural hearing. The effect of microphone directionality (MD) settings has been investigated in other CI indication groups, but its impact on speech perception in noise has not been established in CI users with SSD. The focus of this investigation was, therefore, to assess binaural hearing effects using different MD settings in CI users with SSD.

METHODS

Twenty-nine experienced CI users with SSD were recruited to determine speech reception thresholds with varying target and noise sources to define binaural effects (head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking), sound localization, and sound quality using the SSQ12 and HISQUI₁₉ questionnaires. Outcome measures included the MD settings "natural", "adaptive", and "omnidirectional".

RESULTS

The 29 participants involved in the study were divided into two groups: 11 SONNET users and 18 OPUS 2/RONDO users. In both groups, a significant head shadow effect of 7.4-9.2 dB was achieved with the CI. The MD setting "adaptive" provided a significant head shadow effect of 9.2 dB, a squelch effect of 0.9 dB, and spatial release from masking of 7.6 dB in the SONNET group. No significant summation effect could be determined in either group with CI. Outcomes with the omnidirectional setting were not significantly different between groups. For both groups, localization improved significantly when the CI was activated and was best when the omnidirectional setting was used. The groups' sound quality scores did not significantly differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive directional microphone settings improve speech perception and binaural hearing abilities in CI users with SSD. Binaural effect measures are valuable to quantify the benefit of CI use, especially in this indication group.

Sensitivity to binaural temporal-envelope beats with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant as a measure of tonotopic match (L)

For cochlear-implant users with near-normal contralateral hearing, a mismatch between the frequency-to-place mapping in the two ears could produce a suboptimal performance. This study assesses tonotopic matches via binaural interactions. Dynamic interaural time-difference sensitivity was measured using bandpass-filtered pulse trains at different rates in the acoustic and implanted ear, creating binaural envelope beats. Sensitivity to beats should peak when the same tonotopic region is stimulated in both ears. All nine participants detected dynamic interaural timing differences and demonstrated some frequency selectivity. This method provides a guide to frequency-to-place mapping without compensation for inherent latency differences between the acoustic and implanted ears.

Does bimodal hearing increase self-assessed abilities and hearing outcomes when compared to unilateral cochlear implantation?

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the applicability and benefit of providing unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users with a contralateral hearing aid (HA).Design: This retrospective (case-control) study was conducted in a hospital-based CI centre. Participants self-assessed their hearing via two questionnaires (SSQ₁₂ and HISQUI₁₉). Objective postoperative speech perception was assessed via aided thresholds and speech perception tests (monosyllabic words, disyllabic words, and sentences) in quiet and noise.Study sample: A CI-only group (n = 113, mean age 55.1 ± 14.2 years) and a bimodal group (n = 50, mean age 56.7 ± 15.2) participated in the study.Results: No significant difference in SSQ₁₂ or HISQUI₁₉ scores was observed between groups. The bimodal group had a significantly better aided hearing level (p = 0.020) and speech discrimination score (p = 0.019).Conclusions: Bimodal (CI + HA) users have significantly better speech understanding than unilateral CI-only users, although this benefit may not be reflected in self-assessed outcomes. Counselling about bimodal hearing must cover expectations about potential benefits.

Spatial Speech-in-Noise Performance in Bimodal and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

This study compared spatial speech-in-noise performance in two cochlear implant (CI) patient groups: bimodal listeners, who use a hearing aid contralaterally to support their impaired acoustic hearing, and listeners with contralateral normal hearing, i.e., who were single-sided deaf before implantation. Using a laboratory setting that controls for head movements and that simulates spatial acoustic scenes, speech reception thresholds were measured for frontal speech-in-stationary noise from the front, the left, or the right side. Spatial release from masking (SRM) was then extracted from speech reception thresholds for monaural and binaural listening. SRM was found to be significantly lower in bimodal CI than in CI single-sided deaf listeners. Within each listener group, the SRM extracted from monaural listening did not differ from the SRM extracted from binaural listening. In contrast, a normal-hearing control group showed a significant improvement in SRM when using two ears in comparison to one. Neither CI group showed a binaural summation effect; that is, their performance was not improved by using two devices instead of the best monaural device in each spatial scenario. The results confirm a "listening with the better ear" strategy in the two CI patient groups, where patients benefited from using two ears/devices instead of one by selectively attending to the better one. Which one is the better ear, however, depends on the spatial scenario and on the individual configuration of hearing loss.

Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

Cochlear implantation in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) offers a unique opportunity to directly compare the percepts evoked by a cochlear implant (CI) with those evoked acoustically. Here, nine SSD-CI users performed a forced-choice task evaluating the similarity of speech processed by their CI with speech processed by several vocoders presented to their healthy ear. In each trial, subjects heard two intervals: their CI followed by a certain vocoder in Interval 1 and their CI followed by a different vocoder in Interval 2. The vocoders differed either (i) in carrier type-(sinusoidal [SINE], bandfiltered noise [NOISE], and pulse-spreading harmonic complex) or (ii) in frequency mismatch between the analysis and synthesis frequency ranges-(no mismatch, and two frequency-mismatched conditions of 2 and 4 equivalent rectangular bandwidths [ERBs]). Subjects had to state in which of the two intervals the CI and vocoder sounds were more similar. Despite a large intersubject variability, the PSHC vocoder was judged significantly more similar to the CI than SINE or NOISE vocoders. Furthermore, the No-mismatch and 2-ERB mismatch vocoders were judged significantly more similar to the CI than the 4-ERB mismatch vocoder. The mismatch data were also interpreted by comparing spiral ganglion characteristic frequencies with electrode contact positions determined from postoperative computed tomography scans. Only one subject demonstrated a pattern of preference consistent with adaptation to the CI sound processor frequency-to-electrode allocation table and two subjects showed possible partial adaptation. Those subjects with adaptation patterns presented overall small and consistent frequency mismatches across their electrode arrays.

Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders

For single-sided deafness cochlear-implant (SSD-CI) listeners, different peripheral representations for electric versus acoustic stimulation, combined with interaural frequency mismatch, might limit the ability to perceive bilaterally presented speech as a single voice. The assessment of binaural fusion often relies on subjective report, which requires listeners to have some understanding of the perceptual phenomenon of object formation. Two experiments explored whether binaural fusion could instead be assessed using judgments of the number of voices in a mixture. In an SSD-CI simulation, normal-hearing listeners were presented with one or two "diotic" voices (i.e., unprocessed in one ear and noise-vocoded in the other) in a mixture with additional monaural voices. In experiment 1, listeners reported how many voices they heard. Listeners generally counted the diotic speech as two separate voices, regardless of interaural frequency mismatch. In experiment 2, listeners identified which of two mixtures contained diotic speech. Listeners performed significantly better with interaurally frequency-matched than with frequency-mismatched stimuli. These contrasting results suggest that listeners experienced partial fusion: not enough to count the diotic speech as one voice, but enough to detect its presence. The diotic-speech detection task (experiment 2) might provide a tool to evaluate fusion and optimize frequency mapping for SSD-CI patients.

Sound Localization in Real-Time Vocoded Cochlear-Implant Simulations With Normal-Hearing Listeners

Bilateral cochlear-implant (CI) users and single-sided deaf listeners with a CI are less effective at localizing sounds than normal-hearing (NH) listeners. This performance gap is due to the degradation of binaural and monaural sound localization cues, caused by a combination of device-related and patient-related issues. In this study, we targeted the device-related issues by measuring sound localization performance of 11 NH listeners, listening to free-field stimuli processed by a real-time CI vocoder. The use of a real-time vocoder is a new approach, which enables testing in a free-field environment. For the NH listening condition, all listeners accurately and precisely localized sounds according to a linear stimulus–response relationship with an optimal gain and a minimal bias both in the azimuth and in the elevation directions. In contrast, when listening with bilateral real-time vocoders, listeners tended to orient either to the left or to the right in azimuth and were unable to determine sound source elevation. When listening with an NH ear and a unilateral vocoder, localization was impoverished on the vocoder side but improved toward the NH side. Localization performance was also reflected by systematic variations in reaction times across listening conditions. We conclude that perturbation of interaural temporal cues, reduction of interaural level cues, and removal of spectral pinna cues by the vocoder impairs sound localization. Listeners seem to ignore cues that were made unreliable by the vocoder, leading to acute reweighting of available localization cues. We discuss how current CI processors prevent CI users from localizing sounds in everyday environments.

Reducing the Device Delay Mismatch Can Improve Sound Localization in Bimodal Cochlear Implant/Hearing-Aid Users

In users of a cochlear implant (CI) together with a contralateral hearing aid (HA), so-called bimodal listeners, differences in processing latencies between digital HA and CI up to 9 ms constantly superimpose interaural time differences. In the present study, the effect of this device delay mismatch on sound localization accuracy was investigated. For this purpose, localization accuracy in the frontal horizontal plane was measured with the original and minimized device delay mismatch. The reduction was achieved by delaying the CI stimulation according to the delay of the individually worn HA. For this, a portable, programmable, battery-powered delay line based on a ring buffer running on a microcontroller was designed and assembled. After an acclimatization period to the delayed CI stimulation of 1 hr, the nine bimodal study participants showed a highly significant improvement in localization accuracy of 11.6% compared with the everyday situation without the delay line ( p < .01). Concluding, delaying CI stimulation to minimize the device delay mismatch seems to be a promising method to increase sound localization accuracy in bimodal listeners.

The Effect of Nonlinear Amplitude Growth on the Speech Perception Benefits Provided by a Single-Sided Vocoder

Purpose For listeners with single-sided deafness, a cochlear implant (CI) can improve speech understanding by giving the listener access to the ear with the better target-to-masker ratio (TMR; head shadow) or by providing interaural difference cues to facilitate the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers (squelch). CI simulations presented to listeners with normal hearing examined how these benefits could be affected by interaural differences in loudness growth in a speech-on-speech masking task. Method Experiment 1 examined a target-masker spatial configuration where the vocoded ear had a poorer TMR than the nonvocoded ear. Experiment 2 examined the reverse configuration. Generic head-related transfer functions simulated free-field listening. Compression or expansion was applied independently to each vocoder channel (power-law exponents: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2). Results Compression reduced the benefit provided by the vocoder ear in both experiments. There was some evidence that expansion increased squelch in Experiment 1 but reduced the benefit in Experiment 2 where the vocoder ear provided a combination of head-shadow and squelch benefits. Conclusions The effects of compression and expansion are interpreted in terms of envelope distortion and changes in the vocoded-ear TMR (for head shadow) or changes in perceived target-masker spatial separation (for squelch). The compression parameter is a candidate for clinical optimization to improve single-sided deafness CI outcomes.

Interaural Time-Difference Discrimination as a Measure of Place of Stimulation for Cochlear-Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

Current clinical practice in programming a cochlear implant (CI) for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD) is to maximize the transmission of speech information via the implant, with the implicit assumption that this will also result in improved spatial-hearing abilities. However, binaural sensitivity is reduced by interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch, a likely occurrence with a standard CI frequency-to-electrode allocation table (FAT). As a step toward reducing interaural mismatch, this study investigated whether a test of interaural-time-difference (ITD) discrimination could be used to estimate the acoustic frequency yielding the best place match for a given CI electrode. ITD-discrimination performance was measured by presenting 300-ms bursts of 100-pulses-per-second electrical pulse trains to a single CI electrode and band-limited pulse trains with variable carrier frequencies to the acoustic ear. Listeners discriminated between two reference intervals (four bursts each with constant ITD) and a moving target interval (four bursts with variable ITD). For 17 out of the 26 electrodes tested across eight listeners, the function describing the relationship between ITD-discrimination performance and carrier frequency had a discernable peak where listeners achieved 70% to 100% performance. On average, this peak occurred 1.15 octaves above the CI manufacturer’s default FAT. ITD discrimination shows promise as a method of estimating the cochlear place of stimulation for a given electrode, thereby providing information to optimize the FAT for SSD-CI listeners.

Effects of Cochlear Implantation on Binaural Hearing in Adults With Unilateral Hearing Loss

A FDA clinical trial was carried out to evaluate the potential benefit of cochlear implant (CI) use for adults with unilateral moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Subjects were 20 adults with moderate-to-profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss and normal or near-normal hearing on the other side. A MED-EL standard electrode was implanted in the impaired ear. Outcome measures included: (a) sound localization on the horizontal plane (11 positions, -90° to 90°), (b) word recognition in quiet with the CI alone, and (c) masked sentence recognition with the target at 0° and the masker at -90°, 0°, or 90°. This battery was completed preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after CI activation. Normative data were also collected for 20 age-matched control subjects with normal or near-normal hearing bilaterally. The CI improved localization accuracy and reduced side bias. Word recognition with the CI alone was similar to performance of traditional CI recipients. The CI improved masked sentence recognition when the masker was presented from the front or from the side of normal or near-normal hearing. The binaural benefits observed with the CI increased between the 1- and 3-month intervals but appeared stable thereafter. In contrast to previous reports on localization and speech perception in patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, CI benefits were consistently observed across individual subjects, and performance was at asymptote by the 3-month test interval. Cochlear implant settings, consistent CI use, and short duration of deafness could play a role in this result.

Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users

By allowing bilateral access to sound, bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or unilateral CIs for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD; i.e., normal or near-normal hearing in one ear) can improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Spatial hearing in the horizontal plane is primarily conveyed by interaural time and level differences computed from neurons in the superior olivary complex that receive frequency-matched inputs. Because BI-CIs and SSD-CIs do not necessarily convey frequency-matched information, it is critical to understand how to align the inputs to CI users. Previous studies show that interaural pitch discrimination for SSD-CI listeners is highly susceptible to contextual biases, questioning its utility for establishing interaural frequency alignment. Here, we replicate this finding for SSD-CI listeners and show that these biases also extend to BI-CI listeners. To assess the testing-range bias, three ranges of comparison electrodes (BI-CI) or pure-tone frequencies (SSD-CI) were tested: full range, apical/lower half, or basal/upper half. To assess the reference bias, the reference electrode was either held fixed throughout a testing block or randomly chosen from three electrodes (basal end, middle, or apical end of the array). Results showed no effect of reference electrode randomization, but a large testing range bias; changing the center of the testing-range shifted the pitch match by an average 63 % (BI-CI) or 43 % (SSD-CI) of the change magnitude. This bias diminished pitch-match accuracy, with a change in reference electrode shifting the pitch match only an average 34 % (BI-CI) or 40 % (SSD-CI) of the expected amount. Because these effects extended to the relatively more symmetric BI-CI listeners, the results suggest that the bias cannot be attributed to interaural asymmetry. Unless the range effect can be minimized or accounted for, a pitch-discrimination task will produce interaural place-of-stimulation estimates that are highly influenced by the conditions tested, rather than reflecting a true interaural place-pitch comparison.

Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear

Currently there is a growing population of cochlear-implant (CI) users with (near) normal hearing in the non-implanted ear. This configuration is often called SSD (single-sided deafness) CI. The goal of the CI is often to improve spatial perception, so the question raises to what extent SSD CI listeners are sensitive to interaural time differences (ITDs). In a controlled lab setup, sensitivity to ITDs was investigated in 11 SSD CI listeners. The stimuli were 100-pps pulse trains on the CI side and band-limited click trains on the acoustic side. After determining level balance and the delay needed to achieve synchronous stimulation of the two ears, the just noticeable difference in ITD was measured using an adaptive procedure. Seven out of 11 listeners were sensitive to ITDs, with a median just noticeable difference of 438 μs. Out of the four listeners who were not sensitive to ITD, one listener reported binaural fusion, and three listeners reported no binaural fusion. To enable ITD sensitivity, a frequency-dependent delay of the electrical stimulus was required to synchronize the electric and acoustic signals at the level of the auditory nerve. Using subjective fusion measures and refined by ITD sensitivity, it was possible to match a CI electrode to an acoustic frequency range. This shows the feasibility of these measures for the allocation of acoustic frequency ranges to electrodes when fitting a CI to a subject with (near) normal hearing in the contralateral ear.

Restoration of spatial hearing in adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

In recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have been provided in growing numbers to people with not only bilateral deafness but also to people with unilateral hearing loss, at times in order to alleviate tinnitus. This study presents audiological data from 15 adult participants (ages 48 ± 12 years) with single sided deafness. Results are presented from 9/15 adults, who received a CI (SSD-CI) in the deaf ear and were tested in Acoustic or Acoustic + CI hearing modes, and 6/15 adults who are planning to receive a CI, and were tested in the unilateral condition only. Testing included (1) audiometric measures of threshold, (2) speech understanding for CNC words and AzBIO sentences, (3) tinnitus handicap inventory, (4) sound localization with stationary sound sources, and (5) perceived auditory motion. Results showed that when listening to sentences in quiet, performance was excellent in the Acoustic and Acoustic + CI conditions. In noise, performance was similar between Acoustic and Acoustic + CI conditions in 4/6 participants tested, and slightly worse in the Acoustic + CI in 2/6 participants. In some cases, the CI provided reduced tinnitus handicap scores. When testing sound localization ability, the Acoustic + CI condition resulted in improved sound localization RMS error of 29.2° (SD: ±6.7°) compared to 56.6° (SD: ±16.5°) in the Acoustic-only condition. Preliminary results suggest that the perception of motion direction, whereby subjects are required to process and compare directional cues across multiple locations, is impaired when compared with that of normal hearing subjects.