Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient

The impact of spectral and temporal processing on speech recognition in children with cochlear implants

While the relationships between spectral resolution, temporal resolution, and speech recognition are well defined in adults with cochlear implants (CIs), they are not well defined for prelingually deafened children with CIs, for whom language development is ongoing. This cross-sectional study aimed to better characterize these relationships in a large cohort of prelingually deafened children with CIs (N = 47; mean age = 8.33 years) by comprehensively measuring spectral resolution thresholds (measured via spectral modulation detection), temporal resolution thresholds (measured via sinusoidal amplitude modulation detection), and speech recognition (measured via monosyllabic word recognition, vowel recognition, and sentence recognition in noise via both fixed signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and adaptively varied SNR). Results indicated that neither spectral or temporal resolution were significantly correlated with speech recognition in quiet or noise for children with CIs. Both age and CI experience had a moderate effect on spectral resolution, with significant effects for spectral modulation detection at a modulation rate of 0.5 cyc/oct, suggesting spectral resolution may improve with maturation. Thus, it is possible we may see an emerging relationship between spectral resolution and speech perception over time for children with CIs. While further investigation into this relationship is warranted, these findings demonstrate the need for new investigations to uncover ways of improving spectral resolution for children with CIs.

Simultaneous versus Sequential Cochlear Implantation in Adults: Quantitative and Qualitative Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare speech recognition and quality of life outcomes between bilateral sequentially and simultaneously implanted adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients who initially qualify for a CI in both ears.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review identified adults who underwent bilateral CI, either simultaneously or sequentially, at a high-volume center between 2012 and 2022. Sequentially implanted patients were only included if the second ear qualified for CI in quiet (defined as best-aided AzBio quiet testing <60%), at time of initial CI evaluation.

RESULTS

Of 112 bilateral CI patients who qualified in both ears at initial evaluation, 95 underwent sequential implantation and 17 simultaneous. Age, duration, and etiology of hearing loss, and CI usage were similar between groups. Preoperatively, the sequential group had lower pure-tone average (PTA) in the 1st ear than the simultaneously implanted group (P = <.001) but, no difference in 2nd ear PTA (P = .657). Preoperative speech recognition scores were significantly higher for the sequential group; however, this was not true for postoperative scores. There was no difference in the proportion of patients showing significant CI-only or bilateral performance improvement between the groups. Both groups demonstrated similar benefit in quality of life measures.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate both simultaneous and sequential cochlear implantation are effective in improving hearing performance and quality of life. Thus, bilateral versus simultaneous implantation should be discussed and tailored for each individual patient.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary neurotology center.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Review of Binaural Processing With Asymmetrical Hearing Outcomes in Patients With Bilateral Cochlear Implants

Bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) result in several benefits, including improvements in speech understanding in noise and sound source localization. However, the benefit bilateral implants provide among recipients varies considerably across individuals. Here we consider one of the reasons for this variability: difference in hearing function between the two ears, that is, interaural asymmetry. Thus far, investigations of interaural asymmetry have been highly specialized within various research areas. The goal of this review is to integrate these studies in one place, motivating future research in the area of interaural asymmetry. We first consider bottom-up processing, where binaural cues are represented using excitation-inhibition of signals from the left ear and right ear, varying with the location of the sound in space, and represented by the lateral superior olive in the auditory brainstem. We then consider top-down processing via predictive coding, which assumes that perception stems from expectations based on context and prior sensory experience, represented by cascading series of cortical circuits. An internal, perceptual model is maintained and updated in light of incoming sensory input. Together, we hope that this amalgamation of physiological, behavioral, and modeling studies will help bridge gaps in the field of binaural hearing and promote a clearer understanding of the implications of interaural asymmetry for future research on optimal patient interventions.

Hyperacusis Diagnosis and Management in the United States: Clinical Audiology Practice Patterns

PURPOSE

Hyperacusis often leads to debilitating psychosocial consequences, but there is no standard protocol for its diagnosis and management in the United States. In this study, we surveyed U.S. clinical audiologists to understand their education and clinical practices surrounding the evaluation and treatment of hyperacusis.

METHOD

An online survey was distributed to clinical audiologists across the United States. Survey responses were quantified using descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Hyperacusis definitions and clinical practice patterns varied widely across the 102 respondents. Respondents cited a lack of education and training as the primary barrier to effective audiological diagnosis and management of hyperacusis, with most respondents reporting ≤ 5 hr of hyperacusis education. Other primary barriers to effective audiological management of hyperacusis included time constraints, reimbursement, poor sensitivity and specificity of available diagnostic tools, and poor efficacy of available treatments and management strategies. Most respondents (82.5%) agreed that audiologists are the primary professionals who are responsible for implementing hyperacusis interventions. However, 63.3% of respondents reported that their clinic does not have a hyperacusis management protocol, and 80.0% routinely recommend treatment that is outside their scope of practice to implement (cognitive behavioral therapy).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical audiologists in the United States do not receive uniform education on hyperacusis, and they report multiple barriers to its evidence-based diagnosis and management. Effective hyperacusis management necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. The information obtained via this survey will pave the way toward the refinement of interprofessional education programs and the development of systematic, evidence-based clinical protocols for hyperacusis.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24431188.

The role for cochlear implants in microtia and congenital aural atresia: A case report and a review of literature

Sensorineural hearing loss resulting from microtia and aural atresia is rare due to different embryologic origins of the external and inner ear. Consequently, cochlear implants are seldom performed in patients with microtia and/or aural atresia. Herein we discuss an 8 year-old boy with congenital aural atresia and microtia who underwent cochlear implant surgery for profound hearing loss with good results. A literature review was performed and discussed. Pre-operative planning with high resolution computed tomography and facial nerve monitoring are crucial in identification and preservation of the facial nerve due to the high rate of aberrant anatomy. Careful incision placement is required particularly if pinna reconstruction is considered. Literature review highlighted various surgical approaches as well as different modalities used for intra-operative facial nerve monitoring. Only one patient had intra-operative complications. Cochlear implant is a viable solution in patients with external ear malformations and severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Adequate planning and counselling are essential due to the challenges that may occur in microtia and aural atresia.

Benefits of Bimodal Stimulation to Speech Perception in Noise and Silence

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

Objective discrimination of bimodal speech using frequency following responses

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

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

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

Evolution of the candidacy requirements and patient perioperative assessment protocols for cochlear implantation

Cochlear implantation as an approved clinical therapy ushered in an exciting era of innovation for the treatment of hearing loss. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of cochlear implants as a treatment option for adults with profound sensorineural hearing loss in 1985. The landscape for treating adults and children with significant hearing loss has changed dramatically over the last three decades. The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolving regulatory process and changes to clinical care. A significant emerging trend in cochlear implantation is the consideration of steroids to preserve hearing during and following surgery. This parallels the quest for hearing preservation in noise-induced hearing disorders, especially considering the current interest in biological drug therapies in this population. The future will likely usher in an era of combination therapeutics utilizing drugs and cochlear implantation. For over 30+ years and following regulatory compliance, the Rocky Mountain Ear Center has developed an extensive candidacy and outcome assessment protocol. This systematic approach evaluates both unaided and aided auditory performance during candidacy stages and post-implantation. Adjunctive measures of cognition and quality-of-life augment the auditory assessment in specific populations. Practical insights into lessons learned have directed further clinical research and have resulted in beneficial changes to clinical care.

Dichotic spectral integration range for consonant recognition in listeners with normal hearing

Dichotic spectral integration range, or DSIR, was measured for consonant recognition with normal-hearing listeners. DSIR is defined as a frequency range needed from 0 to 8,000 Hz band in one ear for consonant recognition when low-frequency information of the same consonant was presented to the opposite ear. DSIR was measured under the three signal processing conditions: (1) unprocessed, (2) target: intensified target spectro-temporal regions by 6 dB responsible for consonant recognition, and (3) target minus conflicting: intensified target regions minus spectro-temporal regions that increase confusion. Each consonant was low-pass filtered with a cutoff frequency of 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 Hz, and then was presented in the left ear or low-frequency (LF) ear. To create dichotic listening, the same consonant was simultaneously presented to the right ear or high-frequency (HF) ear. This was high-pass filtered with an initial cutoff frequency of 7,000 Hz, which was adjusted using an adaptive procedure to find the maximum high-pass cutoff for 99.99% correct consonant recognition. Mean DSIRs spanned from 3,198-8,000 Hz to 4,668-8,000 Hz (i.e., mid-to-high frequencies were unnecessary), depending on low-frequency information in the LF ear. DSIRs narrowed (i.e., required less frequency information) with increasing low-frequency information in the LF ear. However, the mean DSIRs were not significantly affected by the signal processing except at the low-pass cutoff frequency of 250 Hz. The individual consonant analyses revealed that /ta/, /da/, /sa/, and /za/ required the smallest DSIR, while /ka/, /ga/, /fa/, and /va/ required the largest DSIRs. DSIRs also narrowed with increasing low-frequency information for the two signal processing conditions except for 250 vs. 1,000 Hz under the target-conflicting condition. The results suggest that consonant recognition is possible with large amounts of spectral information missing if complementary spectral information is integrated across ears. DSIR is consonant-specific and relatively consistent, regardless of signal processing. The results will help determine the minimum spectral range needed in one ear for consonant recognition if limited low spectral information is available in the opposite ear.

Strategic perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for word stress in listeners with cochlear implants, acoustic hearing, or simulated bimodal hearing

Perception of word stress is an important aspect of recognizing speech, guiding the listener toward candidate words based on the perceived stress pattern. Cochlear implant (CI) signal processing is likely to disrupt some of the available cues for word stress, particularly vowel quality and pitch contour changes. In this study, we used a cue weighting paradigm to investigate differences in stress cue weighting patterns between participants listening with CIs and those with normal hearing (NH). We found that participants with CIs gave less weight to frequency-based pitch and vowel quality cues than NH listeners but compensated by upweighting vowel duration and intensity cues. Nonetheless, CI listeners' stress judgments were also significantly influenced by vowel quality and pitch, and they modulated their usage of these cues depending on the specific word pair in a manner similar to NH participants. In a series of separate online experiments with NH listeners, we simulated aspects of bimodal hearing by combining low-pass filtered speech with a vocoded signal. In these conditions, participants upweighted pitch and vowel quality cues relative to a fully vocoded control condition, suggesting that bimodal listening holds promise for restoring the stress cue weighting patterns exhibited by listeners with NH.

Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults Using Bimodal Hearing Configurations

Clinics are treating a growing number of patients with greater amounts of residual hearing. These patients often benefit from a bimodal hearing configuration in which acoustic input from a hearing aid on 1 ear is combined with electrical stimulation from a cochlear implant on the other ear. The current guidelines aim to review the literature and provide best practice recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of individuals with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who may benefit from bimodal hearing configurations. Specifically, the guidelines review: benefits of bimodal listening, preoperative and postoperative cochlear implant evaluation and programming, bimodal hearing aid fitting, contralateral routing of signal considerations, bimodal treatment for tinnitus, and aural rehabilitation recommendations.

Changes in Acoustic Absorbance Pre- and Post-Cochlear Implantation

PURPOSE

Until recently, there has been little investigation on the effects of cochlear implantation on the transmission of acoustic stimuli through the middle-ear system. Recent studies have shown that cochlear implantation decreases low-frequency acoustic absorbance, consistent with a stiffer middle-ear system postsurgery. The objectives of this study are (a) to investigate the time course of changes in acoustic absorbance post-cochlear implantation in the implanted ear and (b) to compare changes in acoustic absorbance between implanted and nonimplanted ears over time.

METHOD

Seventeen adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients within 6 months of device activation participated in this study. Wideband acoustic absorbance was measured in both ears at one to six different time points from pre-implantation up to 6-month postactivation. Analyses examined (a) changes in acoustic absorbance as compared to pre-implantation and (b) differences in acoustic absorbance between implanted and nonimplanted ears over time.

RESULTS

Acoustic absorbance in the implanted ear decreased postsurgery for frequencies lower than 1.5 kHz and persisted through at least 6-month postactivation. We also observed that the spectral range of decreased acoustic absorbance in the implanted ear decreased with longer time postsurgery. Differences in acoustic absorbance between implanted and nonimplanted ears occurred over a broad spectral range at the activation time point and persisted through at least 3-month postactivation, though for a narrower spectral range at the later time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation increased middle-ear stiffness as indicated by decreased acoustic absorbance of low-frequency acoustic power. The findings of this study are consistent with those of previous studies and may have important implications toward understanding spatial hearing and programming of acoustic components for CI-combined electric and binaural acoustic stimulation patients.

The Relationship Between Impedance, Programming and Word Recognition in a Large Clinical Dataset of Cochlear Implant Recipients

Cochlear implant programming typically involves measuring electrode impedance, selecting a speech processing strategy and fitting the dynamic range of electrical stimulation. This study retrospectively analyzed a clinical dataset of adult cochlear implant recipients to understand how these variables relate to speech recognition. Data from 425 implanted post-lingually deafened ears with Advanced Bionics devices were analyzed. A linear mixed-effects model was used to infer how impedance, programming and patient factors were associated with monosyllabic word recognition scores measured in quiet. Additional analyses were conducted on subsets of data to examine the role of speech processing strategy on scores, and the time taken for the scores of unilaterally implanted patients to plateau. Variation in basal impedance was negatively associated with word score, suggesting importance in evaluating the profile of impedance. While there were small, negative bivariate correlations between programming level metrics and word scores, these relationships were not clearly supported by the model that accounted for other factors. Age at implantation was negatively associated with word score, and duration of implant experience was positively associated with word score, which could help to inform candidature and guide expectations. Electrode array type was also associated with word score. Word scores measured with traditional continuous interleaved sampling and current steering speech processing strategies were similar. The word scores of unilaterally implanted patients largely plateaued within 6-months of activation. However, there was individual variation which was not related to initially measured impedance and programming levels.

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.

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

Purpose of review

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

Recent findings

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

Summary

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

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

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

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.

Frequency Following Response and Speech Recognition Benefit for Combining a Cochlear Implant and Contralateral Hearing Aid

Multiple studies have shown significant speech recognition benefit when acoustic hearing is combined with a cochlear implant (CI) for a bimodal hearing configuration. However, this benefit varies greatly between individuals. There are few clinical measures correlated with bimodal benefit and those correlations are driven by extreme values prohibiting data-driven, clinical counseling. This study evaluated the relationship between neural representation of fundamental frequency (F0) and temporal fine structure via the frequency following response (FFR) in the nonimplanted ear as well as spectral and temporal resolution of the nonimplanted ear and bimodal benefit for speech recognition in quiet and noise. Participants included 14 unilateral CI users who wore a hearing aid (HA) in the nonimplanted ear. Testing included speech recognition in quiet and in noise with the HA-alone, CI-alone, and in the bimodal condition (i.e., CI + HA), measures of spectral and temporal resolution in the nonimplanted ear, and FFR recording for a 170-ms/da/stimulus in the nonimplanted ear. Even after controlling for four-frequency pure-tone average, there was a significant correlation (r = .83) between FFR F0 amplitude in the nonimplanted ear and bimodal benefit. Other measures of auditory function of the nonimplanted ear were not significantly correlated with bimodal benefit. The FFR holds potential as an objective tool that may allow data-driven counseling regarding expected benefit from the nonimplanted ear. It is possible that this information may eventually be used for clinical decision-making, particularly in difficult-to-test populations such as young children, regarding effectiveness of bimodal hearing versus bilateral CI candidacy.

Spatial Release From Informational and Energetic Masking in Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Purpose Spatially separating speech and background noise improves speech understanding in normal-hearing listeners, an effect referred to as spatial release from masking (SRM). In cochlear implant (CI) users, SRM has often been demonstrated using asymmetric noise configurations, which maximize benefit from head shadow and the potential availability of binaural cues. In contrast, SRM in symmetrical configurations has been minimal to absent in CI users. We examined the interaction between two types of maskers (informational and energetic) and SRM in bimodal and bilateral CI users. We hypothesized that SRM would be absent or "negative" using symmetrically separated noise maskers. Second, we hypothesized that bimodal listeners would exhibit greater release from informational masking due to access to acoustic information in the non-CI ear. Method Participants included 10 bimodal and 10 bilateral CI users. Speech understanding in noise was tested in 24 conditions: 3 spatial configurations (S₀N₀, S₀N_45&315, S₀N_90&270) × 2 masker types (speech, signal-correlated noise) × 2 listening configurations (best-aided, CI-alone) × 2 talker gender conditions (different-gender, same-gender). Results In support of our first hypothesis, both groups exhibited negative SRM with increasing spatial separation. In opposition to our second hypothesis, both groups exhibited similar magnitudes of release from informational masking. The magnitude of release was greater for bimodal listeners, though this difference failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions Both bimodal and bilateral CI recipients exhibited negative SRM. This finding is consistent with CI signal processing limitations, the audiologic factors associated with SRM, and known effects of behind-the-ear microphone technology. Though release from informational masking was not significantly different across groups, the magnitude of release was greater for bimodal listeners. This suggests that bimodal listeners may be at least marginally more susceptible to informational masking than bilateral CI users, though further research is warranted.

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.

Comparison of Speech Performance in Bimodal versus Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether listening with two cochlear implants (bilateral) offers significant benefits in terms of speech perception over listening with one cochlear implant and one hearing aid (bimodal).

METHODS

Retrospective review of bilateral cochlear implant recipients (24 pediatric and 26 adult). Bimodal listening was compared to bilateral listening in terms of speech perception performance at 1-year post second implant under three listening conditions: 50 dBHL, 35 dBHL, and 50 dBHL+5 SNR. Changes in speech performance from bimodal (before second implant) to bilateral (after second implant) listening were determined within subjects and compared to a separate control group of bimodal users matched for age of first implantation who never received a second implant (10 pediatric and 20 adult).

RESULTS

In the pediatric group, compared to bimodal listening prior to a second implant, speech perception scores with bilateral implants increased significantly when measured at 50 dBHL, 35 dBHL, and 50 dBHL+5 SNR. By contrast, pediatric bimodal controls who never received a second implant failed to demonstrate similar improvement over 1 year's time. In the adult group, compared to bimodal listening prior to a second implant, speech perception scores with bilateral implants increased when measured at 50 dBHL, but were not significantly different at 35 dBHL and 50 dBHL + 5 SNR. Adult bimodal controls who never received a second implant failed to demonstrate significant improvement in all conditions over 1 year's time.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral listening with two cochlear implants improved speech perception performance relative to bimodal listening in the pediatric population. Improvement in the adult population was not as significant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4, Retrospective Chart Review. Laryngoscope, 131:E1322-E1327, 2021.

Evolving Criteria for Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

The indications for cochlear implantation have gradually expanded as advancements in technology have evolved, resulting in improved audiologic outcomes for both adult and children. There remains a significant underutilization of cochlear implant technology in the United States, and recognition of the potential benefits of cochlear implantation for non-traditional indications is critical for encouraging the evolution of candidacy criteria. Adult cochlear implantation candidacy has progressed from patients with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) to include patients with greater degrees of residual hearing, single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing, and atypical etiologies of hearing loss (eg, vestibular schwannoma, Ménière's disease, and otosclerosis). Indications for pediatric cochlear implantation have similarly evolved from children with bilateral severe to profound SNHL to implanting children at a younger age, including those with residual hearing, asymmetric hearing loss, inner ear malformations, as well as cochlear nerve deficiency. In this editorial, the literature investigating cochlear implantation for nontraditional indications is reviewed with an aim to use the best available evidence to encourage the evolution of candidacy criteria.

Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss

Individuals with severe to profound hearing loss are likely to present with complex listening needs that require evidence-based solutions. This document is intended to inform the practice of hearing care professionals who are involved in the audiological management of adults with a severe to profound degree of hearing loss and will highlight the special considerations and practices required to optimize outcomes for these individuals.

Bimodal Benefits for Lexical Tone Recognition: An Investigation on Mandarin-speaking Preschoolers with a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid

Pitch perception is known to be difficult for individuals with cochlear implant (CI), and adding a hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear is potentially beneficial. The current study aimed to investigate the bimodal benefit for lexical tone recognition in Mandarin-speaking preschoolers using a CI and an HA in opposite ears. The child participants were required to complete tone identification in quiet and in noise with CI + HA in comparison with CI alone. While the bimodal listeners showed confusion between Tone 2 and Tone 3 in recognition, the additional acoustic information from the contralateral HA alleviated confusion between these two tones in quiet. Moreover, significant improvement was demonstrated in the CI + HA condition over the CI alone condition in noise. The bimodal benefit for individual subjects could be predicted by the low-frequency hearing threshold of the non-implanted ear and the duration of bimodal use. The findings support the clinical practice to fit a contralateral HA in the non-implanted ear for the potential benefit in Mandarin tone recognition in CI children. The limitations call for further studies on auditory plasticity on an individual basis to gain insights on the contributing factors to the bimodal benefit or its absence.

Music and psychoacoustic perception abilities in cochlear implant users with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder

OBJECTIVE

Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) is a condition wherein the pre-neural or cochlear outer hair cell activity is intact, but the neural activity in the auditory nerve is disrupted. Cochlear implant (CI) can be beneficial for subjects with ANSD; however, little is known about the music perception and psychoacoustic abilities of CI users with ANSD. Music perception in CI users is a multidimensional and complex ability requiring the contribution of both auditory and nonauditory abilities. Even though auditory abilities lay the foundation, the contribution of patient-related variables such as ANSD may affect the music perception. This study aimed to evaluate the psychoacoustic and music perception abilities of CI recipients with ANSD.

STUDY DESIGN

Twelve CI users with ANSD and twelve age- and gendermatched CI users with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) were evaluated. Music perception abilities were measured using the Turkish version of the Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (T-CAMP) test. Psychoacoustic abilities were measured using the spectral ripple discrimination (SRD) and temporal modulation transfer function (TMTF) tests. In addition, the age of diagnosis and implantation was recorded.

RESULTS

Pitch direction discrimination (PDD), timbre recognition, SRD, and TMTF performance of CI users with ANSD were concordant with those reported in previous studies, and differences between ANSD and SNHL groups were not statistically significant. However, the ANSD group performed poorly compared with SNHL group in melody recognition subtest of T-CAMP, and the difference was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

CI can prove beneficial for patients with ANSD with respect to their music and psychoacoustic abilities, similar to patients with SNHL, except for melody recognition. Recognition of melodies requires both auditory and non-auditory abilities, and ANSD may have an extensive but subtle effect in the life of CI users.

Musical Emotion Perception in Bimodal Patients: Relative Weighting of Musical Mode and Tempo Cues

Several cues are used to convey musical emotion, the two primary being musical mode and musical tempo. Specifically, major and minor modes tend to be associated with positive and negative valence, respectively, and songs at fast tempi have been associated with more positive valence compared to songs at slow tempi (Balkwill and Thompson, 1999; Webster and Weir, 2005). In Experiment I, we examined the relative weighting of musical tempo and musical mode among adult cochlear implant (CI) users combining electric and contralateral acoustic stimulation, or "bimodal" hearing. Our primary hypothesis was that bimodal listeners would utilize both tempo and mode cues in their musical emotion judgments in a manner similar to normal-hearing listeners. Our secondary hypothesis was that low-frequency (LF) spectral resolution in the non-implanted ear, as quantified via psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs) at 262 and 440 Hz, would be significantly correlated with degree of bimodal benefit for musical emotion perception. In Experiment II, we investigated across-channel spectral resolution using a spectral modulation detection (SMD) task and neural representation of temporal fine structure via the frequency following response (FFR) for a 170-ms /da/ stimulus. Results indicate that CI-alone performance was driven almost exclusively by tempo cues, whereas bimodal listening demonstrated use of both tempo and mode. Additionally, bimodal benefit for musical emotion perception may be correlated with spectral resolution in the non-implanted ear via SMD, as well as neural representation of F0 amplitude via FFR - though further study with a larger sample size is warranted. Thus, contralateral acoustic hearing can offer significant benefit for musical emotion perception, and the degree of benefit may be dependent upon spectral resolution of the non-implanted ear.

Rehabilitation of Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Adults: Audiological Outcomes

The aim of this article is to describe the audiological patterns of 71 adult patients presenting severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss, who were rehabilitated by cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing aids. This is a retrospective study in a university setting, where the clinical records of 71 adult patients were reviewed and processed. Speech intelligibility was evaluated at one aided ear (CI) or at both aided ears (double CI or a combination of CI and hearing aid [HA]). Patients with a bilateral CI or with a bimodal hearing setup (CI and HA) performed better than those with a single CI; data from the phonetic matrices test showed that there was a statistically significant difference among patients aided by a single CI versus binaural setup (double CI or CI + HA). In particular, patients aided by a bilateral CI, or by a CI and HA, showed an improvement in the functional results of the speech tests, compared to patients using a single CI. Binaural hearing (either with a bilateral CI or bimodal) allows an improvement in the functional results at the speech tests, compared to the use of a CI only.

Evidence-Based Recommendation for Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults

Purpose Most adult cochlear implant (CI) users in developed countries benefit from the use of a hearing aid in conjunction with their implant device (bimodal hearing). Benefits have also been documented for the use of bilateral CIs for speech perception in quiet, localization, and speech perception in noise. This study attempted to quantify speech perception results for bimodal and bilateral CIs in adults and provide a guide for those considering a 2nd CI. Method Speech perception outcomes were reviewed for 1,394 adults with acquired hearing loss who received a CI at the Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic between 2000 and 2015. Results Bimodal and bilateral users significantly outperformed unilateral CI users on consonant-vowel-consonant word recognition in quiet. For the bilateral group, word recognition scores with the 1st CI were predictive of 2nd CI word scores. The analysis suggested that bimodal users who were gaining less than 19% benefit from the nonimplanted ear were likely to perform better with a 2nd implant. Conclusions CI users who score less than 19% on consonant-vowel-consonant words in the nonimplanted ear have a good chance of benefiting from a 2nd implant. Consideration of many other factors including age, hearing goals, medical factors, and the risk to residual hearing also needs to play a part in recommending a 2nd CI.

Effects of Low Frequency Residual Hearing on Music Perception and Psychoacoustic Abilities in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

Studies have demonstrated the benefits of low frequency residual hearing in music perception and for psychoacoustic abilities of adult cochlear implant (CI) users, but less is known about these effects in the pediatric group. Understanding the contribution of combined electric and acoustic stimulation in this group can help to gain a better perspective on decisions regarding bilateral implantation. We evaluated the performance of six unilaterally implanted children between 9 and 13 years of age with contralateral residual hearing using the Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (CAMP), spectral ripple discrimination (SRD), and temporal modulation transfer function (TMTF) tests and compared findings with previous research. Our study sample performed similarly to normal hearing subjects in pitch direction discrimination (0.81 semitones) and performed well above typical CI users in melody recognition (43.37%). The performance difference was less in timbre recognition (48.61%), SRD (1.47 ripple/octave), and TMTF for four modulation frequencies. These findings suggest that the combination of low frequency acoustic hearing with the broader frequency range of electric hearing can help to increase clinical CI benefit in pediatric users and decisions regarding second-side implantation should consider these factors.