Spatial Unmasking and Binaural Advantage for Children with Normal Hearing, a Cochlear Implant and a Hearing Aid, and Bilateral Implants

Validation of the Pediatric Spatial Hearing Questionnaire

PURPOSE

Spatial hearing is necessary for adequate sound awareness and speech perception abilities; however, research indicates that children have difficulties on these spatial hearing tasks that affect functioning in their daily environment. The purpose of this study was to validate a pediatric version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (P-SHQ) for determining binaural hearing benefits and spatial hearing ability in children.

METHOD

We recruited parents and guardians of 68 children ages kindergarten through eighth grade to participate. Parents completed the P-SHQ, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale-Parent version, and a demographic questionnaire. To determine the factor structure of the P-SHQ, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and reliability was assessed by calculating correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Three factors emerged during factor analysis: Factor 1 = sound localization, Factor 2 = speech-in-noise perception, and Factor 3 = speech perception in quiet. The P-SHQ has good internal consistency reliability (α = .97), and high item-total correlations were found. The correlation between scores from the P-SHQ questionnaire and the SSQ-Spatial subscale questionnaire provides evidence for the construct validity of the P-SHQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-SHQ is a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess spatial hearing ability in children. This quick-to-administer tool can be incorporated into audiological care to determine the spatial hearing skills of a child and assist in counseling, making it a valuable assessment for hearing health care professionals.

The Spatial Selective Auditory Attention of Cochlear Implant Users in Different Conversational Sound Levels

In multi-speaker environments, cochlear implant (CI) users may attend to a target sound source in a different manner from normal hearing (NH) individuals during a conversation. This study attempted to investigate the effect of conversational sound levels on the mechanisms adopted by CI and NH listeners in selective auditory attention and how it affects their daily conversation. Nine CI users (five bilateral, three unilateral, and one bimodal) and eight NH listeners participated in this study. The behavioral speech recognition scores were collected using a matrix sentences test, and neural tracking to speech envelope was recorded using electroencephalography (EEG). Speech stimuli were presented at three different levels (75, 65, and 55 dB SPL) in the presence of two maskers from three spatially separated speakers. Different combinations of assisted/impaired hearing modes were evaluated for CI users, and the outcomes were analyzed in three categories: electric hearing only, acoustic hearing only, and electric + acoustic hearing. Our results showed that increasing the conversational sound level degraded the selective auditory attention in electrical hearing. On the other hand, increasing the sound level improved the selective auditory attention for the acoustic hearing group. In the NH listeners, however, increasing the sound level did not cause a significant change in the auditory attention. Our result implies that the effect of the sound level on selective auditory attention varies depending on the hearing modes, and the loudness control is necessary for the ease of attending to the conversation by CI users.

Auditory Attention and Spatial Unmasking in Children With Cochlear Implants

The ability to attend to target speech in background noise is an important skill, particularly for children who spend many hours in noisy environments. Intelligibility improves as a result of spatial or binaural unmasking in the free-field for normal-hearing children; however, children who use bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) demonstrate little benefit in similar situations. It was hypothesized that poor auditory attention abilities might explain the lack of unmasking observed in children with BiCIs. Target and interferer speech stimuli were presented to either or both ears of BiCI participants via their clinical processors. Speech reception thresholds remained low when the target and interferer were in opposite ears, but they did not show binaural unmasking when the interferer was presented to both ears and the target only to one ear. These results demonstrate that, in the most extreme cases of stimulus separation, children with BiCIs can ignore an interferer and attend to target speech, but there is weak or absent binaural unmasking. It appears that children with BiCIs mostly experience poor encoding of binaural cues rather than deficits in ability to selectively attend to target speech.

Electro-haptic stimulation enhances speech recognition in spatially separated noise for cochlear implant users

Hundreds of thousands of profoundly hearing-impaired people perceive sounds through electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve using a cochlear implant (CI). However, CI users are often poor at understanding speech in noisy environments and separating sounds that come from different locations. We provided missing speech and spatial hearing cues through haptic stimulation to augment the electrical CI signal. After just 30 min of training, we found this “electro-haptic” stimulation substantially improved speech recognition in multi-talker noise when the speech and noise came from different locations. Our haptic stimulus was delivered to the wrists at an intensity that can be produced by a compact, low-cost, wearable device. These findings represent a significant step towards the production of a non-invasive neuroprosthetic that can improve CI users’ ability to understand speech in realistic noisy environments.

Effects of Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Use on a Nonauditory Working Memory Task: Reading Span Tests Over 2 Years Following Cochlear Implantation

Purpose A growing body of evidence indicates that treatment of hearing loss by provision of hearing aids leads to improvements in auditory and visual working memory. The purpose of this study was to assess whether similar working memory benefits are observed following provision of cochlear implants (CIs). Method Fifteen adults with postlingually acquired severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss completed the prospective longitudinal study. Participants were candidates for bilateral cochlear implantation with some aidable hearing in each ear. Implantation surgeries were carried out sequentially, approximately 1 year apart. Working memory was measured with the visual Reading Span Test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) at 5 time points: pre-operatively following a 6-month bilateral hearing aid trial, after 6 and 12 months of bimodal (CI plus contralateral hearing aid) listening experience following the 1st CI surgery and activation, and again after 6 and 12 months of bilateral CI listening experience following the 2nd CI surgery and activation. Results Compared to the preoperative baseline, CI listening experience yielded significant improvements in participants' ability to recall test words in the correct serial order after 12 months in the bimodal condition. Individual performance outcomes were variable, but almost all participants showed increases in task performance over the course of the study. Conclusions These results suggest that, similar to appropriate interventions with hearing aids, treatment of hearing loss with CIs can yield working memory benefits. A likely mechanism is the freeing of cognitive resources previously devoted to effortful listening.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bilateral cochlear implants for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears in Singapore

A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that provides a sense of sound for the user, which can be used unilaterally or bilaterally. Although there is advocacy for the benefits of binaural hearing, the high cost of cochlear implant raises the question of whether its additional benefits over the use of an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear outweigh its costs. This cost-effectiveness analysis aimed to separately assess the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations compared to bimodal hearing (use of unilateral cochlear implant combined with an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear) in children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained and costs associated with bilateral cochlear implants over the lifetime horizon were estimated based on a four-state Markov model. The analysis results showed that, at the 2017 mean cost, compared to bimodal hearing, patients receiving bilateral cochlear implants experienced more QALYs but incurred higher costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD$60,607 per QALY gained for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation, and USD$81,782 per QALY gained for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants is most sensitive to utility gain associated with second cochlear implant, and cost of bilateral cochlear implants. ICERs increased when the utility gain from bilateral cochlear implants decreased; ICERs exceeded USD$120,000 per QALY gained when the utility gain was halved from 0.03 to 0.015 in both simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations. The choice of incremental utility gain associated with the second cochlear implant is an area of considerable uncertainty.

Binaural hearing advantages for children with bimodal fitting

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Limiting asymmetric hearing improves benefits of bilateral hearing in children using cochlear implants

Neurodevelopmental changes occur with asymmetric hearing loss, limiting binaural/spatial hearing and putting children at risk for social and educational challenges. These deficits may be mitigated by providing bilateral hearing in children through auditory prostheses. Effects on speech perception and spatial hearing were measured in a large cohort of >450 children who were deaf and used bilateral cochlear implants or bimodal devices (one cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid). Results revealed an advantage of bilateral over unilateral device use but this advantage decreased as hearing in the two ears became increasingly asymmetric. Delayed implantation of an ear with severe to profound deafness allowed asymmetric hearing, creating aural preference for the better hearing ear. These findings indicate that bilateral input with the most appropriate device for each ear should be provided early and without delay during development.

Speech Detection in Noise for Young Bilaterally Implanted Children: Is There Evidence of Binaural Benefit Over the Shadowed Ear Alone?

OBJECTIVES

To measure binaural benefit over the shadowed ear alone for young bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users. It was hypothesized that children who received bilateral CIs at a young age (<4 years), and had significant bilateral experience, would demonstrate lower detection thresholds for speech sounds in background noise in the bilateral CI over the unilateral CI condition when the added CI was ipsilateral to the noise source.

DESIGN

Children receiving bilateral CIs at the Eye and Ear Hospital Clinic in Melbourne were invited to participate in a wider research project evaluating outcomes; those participating in the wider project who were bilaterally implanted by 4 years and were approximately 2 years postoperative were included in the present study. For 20 participants, detection signal to noise ratios (SNRs) were measured for speech presented from in front and noise from 90° in at least 3 of 4 device/noise conditions, namely left CI/noise right and right CI/noise left, plus bilateral CIs/noise right and bilateral CIs/noise left.

RESULTS

As some participants could only complete testing in 3 conditions within the 1 test block, the unilateral versus bilateral comparison was performed for 1 CI (i.e., 1 noise direction) for 15 participants and for both CIs (i.e., noise left and noise right) for 5 participants. Group analysis indicated no significant difference in detection SNR between the unilateral and bilateral CI conditions when adding the left CI or right CI (for the overall group) or when adding the first or second CI (for the 15 participants with sequential bilateral CIs). Separate analyses indicated no significant difference in detection SNR between the unilateral and bilateral CI conditions for the majority of individuals; this occurred irrespective of whether the analysis indicated that the CI added in the bilateral condition was poorer-performing, better-performing, or not significantly different compared with the other CI. Four individuals demonstrated a significant improvement in the bilateral condition when the CI added in the bilateral condition was a better-performing (n = 1), poorer-performing (n = 2), or not significantly different CI (n = 1). There was no relationship between the detection SNR difference between each CI and the detection SNR difference between the unilateral and bilateral conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis of a lower detection SNR in the bilateral condition was not supported by the group results or by the results for the majority of individuals. For the 4 participants who did demonstrate benefit over the shadowed ear alone, that benefit cannot be separated from the potential benefit gained as a result of the CI added in the bilateral condition being the better-performing CI for 1 of the 4. Variation in outcomes could not be related to demographic factors for this group, which was relatively homogeneous for age at bilateral CI and experience; an older, more experienced group may demonstrate greater binaural benefit in these conditions. These results can be used during counseling for families regarding postoperative expectations for young children, especially in the first 2 years.

Sound Localization and Speech Perception in Noise of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: Bimodal Fitting Versus Bilateral Cochlear Implants

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare binaural performance of auditory localization task and speech perception in babble measure between children who use a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the other (bimodal fitting) and those who use bilateral CIs.

DESIGN

Thirteen children (mean age ± SD = 10 ± 2.9 years) with bilateral CIs and 19 children with bimodal fitting were recruited to participate. Sound localization was assessed using a 13-loudspeaker array in a quiet sound-treated booth. Speakers were placed in an arc from -90° azimuth to +90° azimuth (15° interval) in horizontal plane. To assess the accuracy of sound location identification, we calculated the absolute error in degrees between the target speaker and the response speaker during each trial. The mean absolute error was computed by dividing the sum of absolute errors by the total number of trials. We also calculated the hemifield identification score to reflect the accuracy of right/left discrimination. Speech-in-babble perception was also measured in the sound field using target speech presented from the front speaker. Eight-talker babble was presented in the following four different listening conditions: from the front speaker (0°), from one of the two side speakers (+90° or -90°), from both side speakers (±90°). Speech, spatial, and quality questionnaire was administered.

RESULTS

When the two groups of children were directly compared with each other, there was no significant difference in localization accuracy ability or hemifield identification score under binaural condition. Performance in speech perception test was also similar to each other under most babble conditions. However, when the babble was from the first device side (CI side for children with bimodal stimulation or first CI side for children with bilateral CIs), speech understanding in babble by bilateral CI users was significantly better than that by bimodal listeners. Speech, spatial, and quality scores were comparable with each other between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the binaural performance was similar to each other between children who are fit with two CIs (CI + CI) and those who use bimodal stimulation (HA + CI) in most conditions. However, the bilateral CI group showed better speech perception than the bimodal CI group when babble was from the first device side (first CI side for bilateral CI users or CI side for bimodal listeners). Therefore, if bimodal performance is significantly below the mean bilateral CI performance on speech perception in babble, these results suggest that a child should be considered to transit from bimodal stimulation to bilateral CIs.

Factors influencing speech perception in noise for 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the factors influencing speech perception in babble for 5-year-old children with hearing loss who were using hearing aids (HAs) or cochlear implants (CIs).

DESIGN

Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for 50% correct identification were measured in two conditions - speech collocated with babble, and speech with spatially separated babble. The difference in SRTs between the two conditions give a measure of binaural unmasking, commonly known as spatial release from masking (SRM). Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the influence of a range of demographic factors on outcomes.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 252 children enrolled in the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI) study.

RESULTS

Children using HAs or CIs required a better signal-to-noise ratio to achieve the same level of performance as their normal-hearing peers but demonstrated SRM of a similar magnitude. For children using HAs, speech perception was significantly influenced by cognitive and language abilities. For children using CIs, age at CI activation and language ability were significant predictors of speech perception outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Speech perception in children with hearing loss can be enhanced by improving their language abilities. Early age at cochlear implantation was also associated with better outcomes.

Bilateral cochlear implantation or bimodal listening in the paediatric population: Retrospective analysis of decisive criteria

INTRODUCTION

In children with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss, bilateral hearing can be achieved by either bimodal stimulation (CIHA) or bilateral cochlear implantation (BICI). The aim of this study was to analyse the audiologic test protocol that is currently applied to make decisions regarding the bilateral hearing modality in the paediatric population.

METHODS

Pre- and postoperative audiologic test results of 21 CIHA, 19 sequential BICI and 12 simultaneous BICI children were examined retrospectively.

RESULTS

Deciding between either simultaneous BICI or unilateral implantation was mainly based on the infant's preoperative Auditory Brainstem Response thresholds. Evolution from CIHA to sequential BICI was mainly based on the audiometric test results in the contralateral (hearing aid) ear after unilateral cochlear implantation. Preoperative audiometric thresholds in the hearing aid ear were significantly better in CIHA versus sequential BICI children (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001 in unaided and aided condition, respectively). Decisive values obtained in the hearing aid ear in favour of BICI were: An average hearing threshold measured at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz of at least 93 dB HL without, and at least 52 dB HL with hearing aid together with a 40% aided speech recognition score and a 70% aided score on the phoneme discrimination subtest of the Auditory Speech Sounds Evaluation test battery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pure tone audiometry offers no information about bimodal benefit, it remains the most obvious audiometric evaluation in the decision process on the mode of bilateral stimulation in the paediatric population. A theoretical test protocol for adequate evaluation of bimodal benefit in the paediatric population is proposed.

Cortical organization restored by cochlear implantation in young children with single sided deafness

Early treatment of single sided deafness in children has been recommended to protect from neurodevelopmental preference for the better hearing ear and from social and educational deficits. A fairly homogeneous group of five young children (≤3.6 years of age) with normal right sided hearing who received a cochlear implant to treat deafness in their left ears were studied. Etiology of deafness was largely cytomegalovirus (n = 4); one child had an enlarged vestibular aqueduct. Multi-channel electroencephalography of cortical evoked activity was measured repeatedly over time at: 1) acute (0.5 ± 0.7 weeks); 2) early chronic (1.1 ± 0.2 months); and 3) chronic (5.8 ± 3.4 months) cochlear implant stimulation. Results indicated consistent responses from the normal right ear with marked changes in activity from the implanted left ear. Atypical distribution of peak amplitude activity from the implanted ear at acute stimulation marked abnormal lateralization of activity to the ipsilateral left auditory cortex and recruitment of extra-temporal areas including left frontal cortex. These abnormalities resolved with chronic implant use and contralateral aural preference emerged in both auditory cortices. These findings indicate that early implantation in young children with single sided deafness can rapidly restore bilateral auditory input to the cortex needed to improve binaural hearing.

Cantonese Tone Perception for Children Who Use a Hearing Aid and a Cochlear Implant in Opposite Ears

OBJECTIVES

The ability to recognize tones is vital for speech perception in tonal languages. Cantonese has six tones, which are differentiated almost exclusively by pitch cues (tones 1 to 6). The differences in pitch contours among the tones are subtle, making Cantonese a challenging language for cochlear implant users. The addition of a hearing aid has been shown to improve speech perception in nontonal languages and in Mandarin Chinese. This study (1) investigates the Cantonese tone perception ability of children who use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears; (2) evaluates the effect of varying pitch height and pitch contour cues on Cantonese tone perception for these children; and (3) compares the Cantonese tone perception ability for using a hearing aid and a cochlear implant together versus an implant alone.

DESIGN

Eight native Cantonese speaking children using a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears were assessed for tone perception and word identification. The tone perception test involved discriminating and ranking tone pairs from natural and artificially manipulated Cantonese tones with various pitch heights and/or pitch contours. The word identification test involved identifying Cantonese words in a four-alternative forced-choice task. All tests were performed in two device conditions: (1) cochlear implant and hearing aid together and (2) implant alone.

RESULTS

Seven of the 8 subjects performed significantly above chance in both tests using the cochlear implant alone. Results showed that both pitch height and/or pitch direction were important perceptual cues for implant users. Perception for some tones was improved by increasing the pitch height differences between the tones. The ability to discriminate and rank the tone 2/tone 5 contrast and the tone 4/tone 6 contrast was poor, as the tones in these contrasts are similar in pitch contours and onset frequencies. No significant improvement was observed after artificially increasing the pitch offset differences between the tones in the tone 2/tone 5 and the tone 4/tone 6 contrasts. Tone perception results were significantly better with the addition of the hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear compared with using the implant alone; however, word identification results were not significantly different between using the implant alone and using both the hearing aid and the implant together. None of the subjects performed worse in tone perception or in word identification when the hearing aid was added.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced ability to perceive pitch contour cues, even when artificially exaggerated, may explain some of the difficulties in Cantonese word recognition for implant users. The addition of a contralateral hearing aid could be beneficial for Cantonese tone perception for some individuals with a unilateral implant. The results encouraged Cantonese speakers to trial a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear when using a cochlear implant.

United Kingdom national paediatric bilateral project: Demographics and results of localization and speech perception testing

OBJECTIVES

To assess longitudinal outcomes in a large and varied population of children receiving bilateral cochlear implants both simultaneously and sequentially.

METHODS

This observational non-randomized service evaluation collected localization and speech recognition in noise data from simultaneously and sequentially implanted children at four time points: before bilateral cochlear implants or before the sequential implant, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after bilateral implants. No inclusion criteria were applied, so children with additional difficulties, cochleovestibular anomalies, varying educational placements, 23 different home languages, a full range of outcomes and varying device use were included.

RESULTS

1001 children were included: 465 implanted simultaneously and 536 sequentially, representing just over 50% of children receiving bilateral implants in the UK in this period. In simultaneously implanted children the median age at implant was 2.1 years; 7% were implanted at less than 1 year of age. In sequentially implanted children the interval between implants ranged from 0.1 to 14.5 years. Children with simultaneous bilateral implants localized better than those with one implant. On average children receiving a second (sequential) cochlear implant showed improvement in localization and listening in background noise after 1 year of bilateral listening. The interval between sequential implants had no effect on localization improvement although a smaller interval gave more improvement in speech recognition in noise. Children with sequential implants on average were able to use their second device to obtain spatial release from masking after 2 years of bilateral listening. Although ranges were large, bilateral cochlear implants on average offered an improvement in localization and speech perception in noise over unilateral implants.

CONCLUSION

These data represent the diverse population of children with bilateral cochlear implants in the UK from 2010 to 2012. Predictions of outcomes for individual patients are not possible from these data. However, there are no indications to preclude children with long inter-implant interval having the chance of a second cochlear implant.

Bilateral cochlear implants in children: Effects of auditory experience and deprivation on auditory perception

Spatial hearing skills are essential for children as they grow, learn and play. These skills provide critical cues for determining the locations of sources in the environment, and enable segregation of important sounds, such as speech, from background maskers or interferers. Spatial hearing depends on availability of monaural cues and binaural cues. The latter result from integration of inputs arriving at the two ears from sounds that vary in location. The binaural system has exquisite mechanisms for capturing differences between the ears in both time of arrival and intensity. The major cues that are thus referred to as being vital for binaural hearing are: interaural differences in time (ITDs) and interaural differences in levels (ILDs). In children with normal hearing (NH), spatial hearing abilities are fairly well developed by age 4-5 years. In contrast, most children who are deaf and hear through cochlear implants (CIs) do not have an opportunity to experience normal, binaural acoustic hearing early in life. These children may function by having to utilize auditory cues that are degraded with regard to numerous stimulus features. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of children receiving bilateral CIs, and evidence suggests that while having two CIs helps them function better than when listening through a single CI, these children generally perform worse than their NH peers. This paper reviews some of the recent work on bilaterally implanted children. The focus is on measures of spatial hearing, including sound localization, release from masking for speech understanding in noise and binaural sensitivity using research processors. Data from behavioral and electrophysiological studies are included, with a focus on the recent work of the authors and their collaborators. The effects of auditory plasticity and deprivation on the emergence of binaural and spatial hearing are discussed along with evidence for reorganized processing from both behavioral and electrophysiological studies. The consequences of both unilateral and bilateral auditory deprivation during development suggest that the relevant set of issues is highly complex with regard to successes and the limitations experienced by children receiving bilateral cochlear implants. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled .

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Comparative within-subject case review.

SETTING

Outpatient hearing clinic.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Binaural fusion and listening effort in children who use bilateral cochlear implants: a psychoacoustic and pupillometric study

Bilateral cochlear implants aim to provide hearing to both ears for children who are deaf and promote binaural/spatial hearing. Benefits are limited by mismatched devices and unilaterally-driven development which could compromise the normal integration of left and right ear input. We thus asked whether children hear a fused image (ie. 1 vs 2 sounds) from their bilateral implants and if this “binaural fusion” reduces listening effort. Binaural fusion was assessed by asking 25 deaf children with cochlear implants and 24 peers with normal hearing whether they heard one or two sounds when listening to bilaterally presented acoustic click-trains/electric pulses (250 Hz trains of 36 ms presented at 1 Hz). Reaction times and pupillary changes were recorded simultaneously to measure listening effort. Bilaterally implanted children heard one image of bilateral input less frequently than normal hearing peers, particularly when intensity levels on each side were balanced. Binaural fusion declined as brainstem asymmetries increased and age at implantation decreased. Children implanted later had access to acoustic input prior to implantation due to progressive deterioration of hearing. Increases in both pupil diameter and reaction time occurred as perception of binaural fusion decreased. Results indicate that, without binaural level cues, children have difficulty fusing input from their bilateral implants to perceive one sound which costs them increased listening effort. Brainstem asymmetries exacerbate this issue. By contrast, later implantation, reflecting longer access to bilateral acoustic hearing, may have supported development of auditory pathways underlying binaural fusion. Improved integration of bilateral cochlear implant signals for children is required to improve their binaural hearing.

Long-term outcomes on spatial hearing, speech recognition and receptive vocabulary after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children

Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in profoundly deaf children often leads to primary advantages in spatial hearing and speech recognition. It is not yet known how these children develop in the long-term and if these primary advantages will also lead to secondary advantages, e.g. in better language skills. The aim of the present longitudinal cohort study was to assess the long-term effects of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children on spatial hearing, speech recognition in quiet and in noise and receptive vocabulary. Twenty-four children with bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) were tested 5-6 years after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. These children received their second implant between 2.4 and 8.5 years of age. Speech and language data were also gathered in a matched reference group of 26 children with a unilateral cochlear implant (UCI). Spatial hearing was assessed with a minimum audible angle (MAA) task with different stimulus types to gain global insight into the effective use of interaural level difference (ILD) and interaural timing difference (ITD) cues. In the long-term, children still showed improvements in spatial acuity. Spatial acuity was highest for ILD cues compared to ITD cues. For speech recognition in quiet and noise, and receptive vocabulary, children with BiCIs had significant higher scores than children with a UCI. Results also indicate that attending a mainstream school has a significant positive effect on speech recognition and receptive vocabulary compared to attending a school for the deaf. Despite of a period of unilateral deafness, children with BiCIs, participating in mainstream education obtained age-appropriate language scores.

Results in cochlear implanted children before 5 years of age. a long term follow up

OBJECTIVE

To assess the hearing threshold and linguistic results of cochlear implanted children aged 10 months to 5 years, when they reached the age of 12. We studied the benefits of sequential bilateral implantation.

METHOD AND RESULTS

This is an observational, descriptive, transversal study comprising 57 cochlear implanted subjects. We performed a free field tonal audiometry at 65dB SPL, speech tests and sentences in quiet and noise (SNR+10) tests. The Objective and Criterial Language Battery (BLOC) was used to assess linguistic competence, in its screening version.

RESULTS

Children implanted under the age of 2 and with inter-implant period less than or equal to 4 years reached better statistically significant results in disyllabic and sentences with and without noise (p=0.006) tests and in the disyllabic test with noise (p=0.045) (the hardest speech test). This suggests the acquisition of binaurality, as opposed to children implanted after this age, with inter-implant period longer than 4 years, who do not reach the same performance levels.

RESULTS

of language development in the group implanted at ages 10 months to 2 years are better with respect to implanted children at ages 3-5 (<0.05) in both unilateral and bilateral implanted children in relation to the age of implantation.

CONCLUSION

Children with pre-lingual deafness implanted before the age of 2, when they are 12 years old obtain more benefits in their language development and in their linguistic competence than children implanted after this age. The audiology results are better in children implanted bilaterally under the age of 2.

Bilateral cochlear implantation in children: a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate the effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation over unilateral implantation in children with sensorineural hearing loss.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

All studies comparing a bilateral cochlear implant group with a unilateral implant group were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies compared a bilateral cochlear implant group with a unilateral group. No randomized trials were identified. Due to the clinical heterogeneity, statistical pooling was not feasible and a best-evidence synthesis was performed. The results of this best-evidence synthesis indicate the positive effect of the second implant for especially sound localization and possibly for preverbal communication and language development. There was insufficient evidence to make a valid comparison between bilateral implantation and a bimodal fitting.

CONCLUSION

Although randomized trials are lacking, the results of our best-evidence synthesis indicate that the second cochlear implant might be especially useful in sound localization and possibly also in language development.

Communication benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation. Retrospective study in 12-year-old children

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Some studies suggest that simultaneous or sequential cochlear implantation in a short period of time offers additional benefits. There is controversy regarding the existence of an age limit after which a second implantation offers less benefit for the acquisition of communication skills. The objectives of this study were to confirm that sequential cochlear implantation offers benefits compared to unilateral implantation and to study whether, at 12 years of age, there are significant differences regarding the age at the time of the second implantation.

METHODS

Descriptive and observational study of a population of 12-year-old children carrying cochlear implants (n=69). A liminal pure tone audiometry and an open-field verbal discrimination test (disyllables, common phrases in an open context, with and without noise) were conducted to evaluate audiological benefits.

RESULTS

Verbal discrimination results were better among patients who had been implanted before the age of 2 years, although the differences were not statistically significant (P>.5). Children who had received bilateral cochlear implants before the age of 2 years and with a period less than 4 years between both implants presented better verbal discrimination percentages (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample, early cochlear implantation with a short period between both implants provided significant benefits regarding intelligibility. There seem to be a specific age and interimplant period, after which the auditory benefit on the first implant becomes reduced.

Clinical selection criteria for a second cochlear implant for bimodal listeners

OBJECTIVE

To compare the speech perception benefit, provided by a contralateral hearing aid (HA) or a second cochlear implant (CI).

STUDY DESIGN

Repeated measures.

PATIENTS

A total of 25 adult subjects participated in the study, including 12 bilateral (10 female and 2 male patients) and 13 bimodal (6 female and 7 male subjects) users. All bilateral users were sequentially implanted. The bimodal users were separated into a poor group (n = 5, aided pure-tone average (PTA) of 55 dB HL or greater at audiometric frequencies of 1 kHz or lesser) and a good group (n = 8, aided PTA < 55 dB HL).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Consonant, vowel, and sentence recognition was measured in quiet and noise at +5 dB and +10 dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Speech recognition performance was evaluated under three listening conditions: CI alone, HA alone, and CI+HA for bimodal users; first CI alone, second CI alone, and first CI + second CI for bilateral users when speech and noise were presented from the front.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the binaural benefit between the good bimodal and bilateral groups in vowel and sentence recognition. However, the binaural benefit is significantly better in the bilateral group than in the poor bimodal group for all 3 speech measures.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the aided pure-tone average at audiometric frequencies of 1 kHz or lesser may serve as one of the clinical criteria for the recommendation of whether bimodal patients should consider a second cochlear implant to maximize their binaural listening ability.

Outcomes in cochlear implantation: variables affecting performance in adults and children

This article highlights variables that affect cochlear implant performance, emerging factors warranting consideration, and variables shown not to affect performance. Research on the outcomes following cochlear implantation has identified a wide spectrum of variables known to affect pos0timplantation performance. These variables relate to the device itself as well as individual patient characteristics. Factors believed to affect spiral ganglion cell survival and function have been shown to influence postoperative performance. Binaural hearing affects performance. Social and educational factors also affect postoperative performance. Novel variables capable of affecting performance continue to emerge with increased understanding of auditory pathway development and neural plasticity.

The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception

The addition of low-passed (LP) speech or even a tone following the fundamental frequency (F0) of speech has been shown to benefit speech recognition for cochlear implant (CI) users with residual acoustic hearing. The mechanisms underlying this benefit are still unclear. In this study, eight bimodal subjects (CI users with acoustic hearing in the non-implanted ear) and eight simulated bimodal subjects (using vocoded and LP speech) were tested on vowel and consonant recognition to determine the relative contributions of acoustic and phonetic cues, including F0, to the bimodal benefit. Several listening conditions were tested (CI/Vocoder, LP, T(F0-env), CI/Vocoder + LP, CI/Vocoder + T(F0-env)). Compared with CI/Vocoder performance, LP significantly enhanced both consonant and vowel perception, whereas a tone following the F0 contour of target speech and modulated with an amplitude envelope of the maximum frequency of the F0 contour (T(F0-env)) enhanced only consonant perception. Information transfer analysis revealed a dual mechanism in the bimodal benefit: The tone representing F0 provided voicing and manner information, whereas LP provided additional manner, place, and vowel formant information. The data in actual bimodal subjects also showed that the degree of the bimodal benefit depended on the cutoff and slope of residual acoustic hearing.

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

Binaural hearing in cochlear implant (CI) users can be achieved either by bilateral implantation or bimodally with a contralateral hearing aid (HA). Binaural-bimodal hearing has the advantage of complementing the high-frequency electric information from the CI by low-frequency acoustic information from the HA. We examined the contribution of a contralateral HA in 25 adult implantees to their perception of fundamental frequency-cued speech characteristics (initial consonant voicing, intonation, and emotions). Testing with CI alone, HA alone, and bimodal hearing showed that all three characteristics were best perceived under the bimodal condition. Significant differences were recorded between bimodal and HA conditions in the initial voicing test, between bimodal and CI conditions in the intonation test, and between both bimodal and CI conditions and between bimodal and HA conditions in the emotion-in-speech test. These findings confirmed that such binaural-bimodal hearing enhances perception of these speech characteristics and suggest that implantees with residual hearing in the contralateral ear may benefit from a HA in that ear.

Cochlear implants: current status and future potential

This article reviews the current status of cochlear implantation in both adults and children, including expanding candidacy groups, bilateral implantation, advances in speech processing software, internal and external device hardware, surgical techniques and outcomes. Promising advances, novel therapies and evolving concepts are also highlighted in terms of their future impact on clinical outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

OBJECTIVE

The present study compared the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of normally hearing children (n=15) to children using a cochlear implant (CI) alone (n=8), bilateral hearing aids (HAs) (n=6), or bimodal stimulation (BMS) (n=9). It was hypothesised that users of BMS would score higher on tasks of speech and pitch perception than children using a CI alone, but not children using HAs.

METHODS

Participants were assessed on tasks of monosyllabic word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in quiet and noise (10 dB signal-to-noise ratio), and a pitch ranking task using pairs of sung vowels one, half, and a quarter of an octave apart.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the mean percentage-correct scores of the four participant groups for either words in quiet or sentences in quiet and noise. However, the proportion of bimodal users who scored >80% correct (80%) was significantly greater than the proportion of high-scoring unilateral CI (25%) or bilateral HA users (17%). Contrary to expectations, there was also no significant difference between the pitch ranking scores of users of BMS and users of a CI alone for all three interval sizes (p<0.05, RM-ANOVA). However participants using only acoustic hearing (i.e. the NH and HA groups) scored significantly higher than participants using electrical stimulation (i.e. the CI and BMS groups) on the pitch ranking task (p<0.05; RM-ANOVA).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to findings in postlingually deafened adults, we found no significant bimodal advantage for pitch perception in prelingually deafened children. However, the performance of children using electrical stimulation was significantly poorer than children using only acoustic stimulation. Further research is required to investigate the contribution of the non-implanted ears of users of BMS to pitch perception, and the effect of hearing loss on the development of pitch perception in children.

Bilateral paediatric cochlear implants: a critical review

A recent trend has been the implantation of bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) for children with severe to profound hearing loss. A review of available research on bilateral CIs was conducted to determine the support for this trend. A replicable review was undertaken to evaluate published research studies that examined the effectiveness of bilateral paediatric cochlear implantation. Databases, reference lists, and journals were searched for relevant documents using a pre-determined search protocol. Twenty-nine articles met the review's inclusion criteria and were retrieved and reviewed. This review adds to the previously published reviews on the topic by identifying additional paediatric studies. Sound localization and speech recognition in noise appear to be improved with bilateral compared to unilateral cochlear implants. Similarly, evoked potential measures suggest improved morphology when the second CI is implanted early. Well-designed and controlled studies that explore a variety of outcomes including cost-effectiveness, quality of life, speech, language, and psycho-educational measures should be further explored in order to provide additional support for parents and clinicians confronted with the bilateral cochlear implant decision.

Bilateral cochlear implantation: current concepts, indications, and results

The optimal treatment for bilateral hearing loss continues to evolve as cochlear implant (CI) and hearing aid technologies advance, as does our understanding of the central auditory system. Ongoing discussions continue on the validity and feasibility of bilateral CI in terms of performance, justification of need, medical/surgical safety concerns, and economics. The purpose of this review article is to provide an update on the advantages and disadvantages of bilateral CI and to provide a discussion on timing (simultaneous vs. sequential), technology (bimodal vs. binaural) and feasibility. Binaural advantages are found in both adult and pediatric bilateral CI recipients, the greatest being the head shadow effect and improvements in localization and loudness summation. This theoretically offers an advantage over their unilateral implanted counterparts in terms of improved sound localization and enhanced speech perception under noisy conditions. Most investigators agree that bilateral stimulation during critical periods of development is paramount for optimizing auditory functioning in children. Currently, bilateral CI is widely accepted as a safe and effective means of bilateral auditory stimulation.

Bilateral cochlear implants should be the standard for children with bilateral sensorineural deafness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bilateral cochlear implants are provided to children in an attempt to establish binaural processing and allow hearing with greater ease. Arguments against implantation, which prevailed for many years, are countered by some of the findings reported over the past 1-2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Behavioral and electrophysiological outcomes in children receiving cochlear implants suggest that two issues are most important when considering bilateral cochlear implants for any child: the duration of deafness prior to the first implantation affecting development of oral speech and language skills and the inter-stage interval (between implantation of the first and second ears) likely affecting development of binaural processing.

SUMMARY

Based on the data reported to date, both the interval between onset of deafness and cochlear implantation and the interval between implantation of the first and second ears should be narrow in children. We recommend that simultaneous bilateral implantation be provided when possible and, if not, the inter-stage interval should be limited. We further recommend continued exploration of outcomes in children with longer inter-stage intervals with a view to defining a point at which bilateral cochlear implantation provides so little benefit that it is not cost-effective.