The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth

Interactions Between Slopes of Residual Hearing and Frequency Maps in Simulated Bimodal and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Hearing

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of residual hearing slopes and cochlear implant frequency map settings on bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) benefits in speech perception.

METHOD

Adults with normal hearing were recruited for simulated bimodal and EAS hearing. Sentence perception was measured unilaterally and bilaterally. For the acoustic stimulation, three slopes of high-frequency hearing loss were created using low-pass filters with a cutoff frequency of 500 Hz: steep (96 dB/octave), medium (48 dB/octave), and shallow (24 dB/octave). For the electric stimulation, an eight-channel sinewave vocoder was used with an output frequency range (1000-7938 Hz) with three input frequency ranges to create frequency maps, overlap (188-7938 Hz), meet (500-7938 Hz), and gap (750-7938 Hz), relative to the cutoff frequency in the acoustic stimulation.

RESULTS

The largest bimodal/EAS benefit occurred with the shallow slope, and the smallest occurred with the steep slope. The effects of the slopes on bimodal/EAS benefit were greatest with the meet or gap map and the least with the overlap map. EAS benefit was greater than bimodal benefit at higher signal-to-noise ratios regardless of frequency map.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that correlation between bimodal/EAS benefit and residual hearing could potentially improve if slopes were considered. The optimal frequency map differed with different slopes, suggesting that the slopes of residual hearing should be carefully considered in fitting bimodal and EAS hearing. EAS hearing provided greater benefit over bimodal hearing, suggesting that spectrotemporal integration was better within one ear (i.e., EAS) than across ears (i.e., bimodal).

Incidence of Cochlear Implant Electrode Contacts in the Functional Acoustic Hearing Region and the Influence on Speech Recognition with Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the incidence of electrode contacts within the functional acoustic hearing region in cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to assess its influence on speech recognition for electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

One hundred five CI recipients with functional acoustic hearing preservation (≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz).

INTERVENTIONS

Cochlear implantation with a 24-, 28-, or 31.5-mm lateral wall electrode array.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Angular insertion depth (AID) of individual contacts was determined from imaging. Unaided acoustic thresholds and AID were used to calculate the proximity of contacts to the functional acoustic hearing region. The association between proximity values and speech recognition in quiet and noise for EAS users at 6 months postactivation was reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of cases had one or more contacts within the functional acoustic hearing region. Proximity was not significantly associated with speech recognition in quiet. Better performance in noise was observed for cases with close correspondence between the most apical contact and the upper edge of residual hearing, with poorer results for increasing proximity values in either the basal or apical direction ( r14 = 0.48, p = 0.043; r18 = -0.41, p = 0.045, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There was a high incidence of electrode contacts within the functional acoustic hearing region, which is not accounted for with default mapping procedures. The variability in outcomes across EAS users with default maps may be due in part to electric-on-acoustic interference, electric frequency-to-place mismatch, and/or failure to stimulate regions intermediate between the most apical electrode contact and the functional acoustic hearing region.

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.

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.

Translational Applications of Machine Learning in Auditory Electrophysiology

Machine learning (ML) is transforming nearly every aspect of modern life including medicine and its subfields, such as hearing science. This article presents a brief conceptual overview of selected ML approaches and describes how these techniques are being applied to outstanding problems in hearing science, with a particular focus on auditory evoked potentials (AEPs). Two vignettes are presented in which ML is used to analyze subcortical AEP data. The first vignette demonstrates how ML can be used to determine if auditory learning has influenced auditory neurophysiologic function. The second vignette demonstrates how ML analysis of AEPs may be useful in determining whether hearing devices are optimized for discriminating speech sounds.

Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

PURPOSE

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients demonstrate variable speech recognition when listening with a CI-alone or electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device, which may be due in part to electric frequency-to-place mismatches created by the default mapping procedures. Performance may be improved if the filter frequencies are aligned with the cochlear place frequencies, known as place-based mapping. Performance with default maps versus an experimental place-based map was compared for participants with normal hearing when listening to CI-alone or EAS simulations to observe potential outcomes prior to initiating an investigation with CI recipients.

METHOD

A noise vocoder simulated CI-alone and EAS devices, mapped with default or place-based procedures. The simulations were based on an actual 24-mm electrode array recipient, whose insertion angles for each electrode contact were used to estimate the respective cochlear place frequency. The default maps used the filter frequencies assigned by the clinical software. The filter frequencies for the place-based maps aligned with the cochlear place frequencies for individual contacts in the low- to mid-frequency cochlear region. For the EAS simulations, low-frequency acoustic information was filtered to simulate aided low-frequency audibility. Performance was evaluated for the AzBio sentences presented in a 10-talker masker at +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), +10 dB SNR, and asymptote.

RESULTS

Performance was better with the place-based maps as compared with the default maps for both CI-alone and EAS simulations. For instance, median performance at +10 dB SNR for the CI-alone simulation was 57% correct for the place-based map and 20% for the default map. For the EAS simulation, those values were 59% and 37% correct. Adding acoustic low-frequency information resulted in a similar benefit for both maps.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing frequency-to-place mismatches, such as with the experimental place-based mapping procedure, produces a greater benefit in speech recognition than maximizing bandwidth for CI-alone and EAS simulations. Ongoing work is evaluating the initial and long-term performance benefits in CI-alone and EAS users.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19529053.

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.

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

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

Bimodal Hearing with Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: Effect of Acoustic Bandwidth

OBJECTIVE

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of acoustic bandwidth on bimodal benefit for speech understanding in pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Ten children (6-13 years) with CIs utilizing a bimodal hearing configuration participated in this study. Speech understanding was assessed via recorded Pediatric AzBio sentences presented in a 10-talker babble. The CI stimulus was always unprocessed and the low-pass filtered acoustic stimuli were delivered to the non-CI ear with the following cutoff frequencies: 250, 500, 750, 1000, and 1500 Hz.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sentence recognition in noise for the acoustic-alone, CI-alone, and bimodal listening conditions.

RESULTS

The primary findings were: (1) children gained significant bimodal benefit with 250 Hz, and (2) children demonstrated no statistically significant additional bimodal benefit with increasing acoustic bandwidth.

CONCLUSIONS

Acoustic bandwidth effects for pediatric CI recipients were significantly different than those documented in the literature for adult CI recipients. Specifically, this group of pediatric CI recipients demonstrated no increases in bimodal benefit with increases in acoustic bandwidth, primarily consistent with a segregation theory of bimodal integration.

Initial Experience With a Recently Developed Lateral Wall Electrode

OBJECTIVE

To review our hearing preservation rates and speech recognition outcomes in patients undergoing cochlear implantation with a recently developed lateral wall electrode.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Retrospective case series of all patients, both pediatric and adult, undergoing cochlear implantation with the Advanced Bionics Hifocus™ SlimJ electrode between December 2017 and January 2020. Main outcomes included hearing preservation rates using several definitions, speech recognition testing primarily through Arizona Biosciences (AzBio) and Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) testing, intra- and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Sixty-one ears underwent implantation with the new electrode. Hearing preservation rates were 13.0% to 36.0% depending on the definition used. Speech recognition testing showed significant increases from pre- to postoperative condition (Implant-only AzBio: 24.1 to 48.3, P = .004, binaural AzBio: 46.1 to 65.9, P = .002, Implant-only CNC: 9.7 to 35.1, P < .001, binaural CNC: 29.8 to 59.40, P < .001) with last speech recognition testing occurring an average of 8.8 months postoperatively. The elderly population had the worst hearing preservation rates across all definitions. Five explantations were required due to two infections and three device failures.

CONCLUSION

Hearing preservation rates varied significantly depending on the definition used, but users experienced a significant improvement in speech recognition testing after implantation. More work is needed in the community to standardize the definition of residual hearing and hearing preservation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Speech Understanding With Bimodal Stimulation Is Determined by Monaural Signal to Noise Ratios: No Binaural Cue Processing Involved

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the mechanisms behind binaural and spatial effects in speech understanding for bimodal cochlear implant listeners. In particular, to test our hypothesis that their speech understanding can be characterized by means of monaural signal to noise ratios, rather than complex binaural cue processing such as binaural unmasking.

DESIGN

We applied a semantic framework to characterize binaural and spatial effects in speech understanding on an extensive selection of the literature on bimodal listeners. In addition, we performed two experiments in which we measured speech understanding in different masker types (1) using head-related transfer functions, and (2) while adapting the broadband signal to noise ratios in both ears independently. We simulated bimodal hearing with a vocoder in one ear (the cochlear implant side) and a low-pass filter in the other ear (the hearing aid side). By design, the cochlear implant side was the main contributor to speech understanding in our simulation.

RESULTS

We found that spatial release from masking can be explained as a simple trade-off between a monaural change in signal to noise at the cochlear implant side (quantified as the head shadow effect) and an opposite change in signal to noise at the hearing aid side (quantified as a change in bimodal benefit). In simulated bimodal listeners, we found that for every 1 dB increase in signal to noise ratio at the hearing aid side, the bimodal benefit improved by approximately 0.4 dB in signal to noise ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Although complex binaural cue processing is often implicated when discussing speech intelligibility in adverse listening conditions, performance can simply be explained based on monaural signal to noise ratios for bimodal listeners.

Interaction Between Electric and Acoustic Stimulation Influences Speech Perception in Ipsilateral EAS Users

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine electric-acoustic masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing and different electrode insertion depths and to investigate the influence on speech reception. The effects of different fitting strategies-meet, overlap, and a newly developed masking adjusted fitting (UNMASKfit)-on speech reception are compared. If electric-acoustic masking has a detrimental effect on speech reception, the individualized UNMASKfit map might be able to reduce masking and thereby enhance speech reception.

DESIGN

Fifteen experienced MED-EL Flex electrode recipients with ipsilateral residual hearing participated in a crosssover design study using three fitting strategies for 4 weeks each. The following strategies were compared: (1) a meet fitting, dividing the frequency range between electric and acoustic stimulation, (2) an overlap fitting, delivering part of the frequency range both acoustically and electrically, and (3) the UNMASKfit, reducing the electric stimulation according to the individual electric-on-acoustic masking strength. A psychoacoustic masking procedure was used to measure the changes in acoustic thresholds due to the presence of electric maskers. Speech reception was measured in noise with the Oldenburg Matrix Sentence test.

RESULTS

Behavioral thresholds of acoustic probe tones were significantly elevated in the presence of electric maskers. A maximum of masking was observed when the difference in location between the electric and acoustic stimulation was around one octave in place frequency. Speech reception scores and strength of masking showed a dependency on residual hearing, and speech reception was significantly reduced in the overlap fitting strategy. Electric- acoustic stimulation significantly improved speech reception over electric stimulation alone, with a tendency toward a larger benefit with the UNMASKfit map. In addition, masking was significantly inversely correlated to the speech reception performance difference between the overlap and the meet fitting.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) This study confirmed the interaction between ipsilateral electric and acoustic stimulation in a psychoacoustic masking experiment. (2) The overlap fitting yielded poorer speech reception performance in stationary noise especially in subjects with strong masking. (3) The newly developed UNMASKfit strategy yielded similar speech reception thresholds with an enhanced acoustic benefit, while at the same time reducing the electric stimulation. This could be beneficial in the long-term if applied as a standard fitting, as hair cells are exposed to less possibly adverse electric stimulation. In this study, the UNMASKfit allowed the participants a better use of their natural hearing even after 1 month of adaptation. It might be feasible to transfer these results to the clinic, by fitting patients with the UNMASKfit upon their first fitting appointment, so that longer adaptation times can further improve speech reception.

Bimodal Benefit for Music Perception: Effect of Acoustic Bandwidth

Purpose The challenges associated with cochlear implant (CI)-mediated listening are well documented; however, they can be mitigated through the provision of aided acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear-a configuration termed bimodal hearing. This study extends previous literature to examine the effect of acoustic bandwidth in the non-CI ear for music perception. The primary aim was to determine the minimum and optimum acoustic bandwidth necessary to obtain bimodal benefit for music perception and speech perception. Method Participants included 12 adult bimodal listeners and 12 adult control listeners with normal hearing. Music perception was assessed via measures of timbre perception and subjective sound quality of real-world music samples. Speech perception was assessed via monosyllabic word recognition in quiet. Acoustic stimuli were presented to the non-CI ear in the following filter conditions: < 125, < 250, < 500, and < 750 Hz, and wideband (full bandwidth). Results Generally, performance for all stimuli improved with increasing acoustic bandwidth; however, the bandwidth that is both minimally and optimally beneficial may be dependent upon stimulus type. On average, music sound quality required wideband amplification, whereas speech recognition with a male talker in quiet required a narrower acoustic bandwidth (< 250 Hz) for significant benefit. Still, average speech recognition performance continued to improve with increasing bandwidth. Conclusion Further research is warranted to examine optimal acoustic bandwidth for additional stimulus types; however, these findings indicate that wideband amplification is most appropriate for speech and music perception in individuals with bimodal hearing.

Preimplant Hearing Threshold: An Important Predictor of Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation With Lateral Wall Electrodes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes and association factors of long-term hearing preservation (HP) in cochlear implantation with lateral wall (LW) electrode arrays.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

Thirty-four consecutive ears from 32 patients with a ≤ 80 dB HL preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average of 250 to 500 Hz were included.

INTERVENTION

Cochlear implantation with LW electrode arrays and the intention of achieving HP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

HP classifications according to the HEARRING group and functional HP methods (≤ 85 dB HL of pure-tone threshold at 250 Hz) at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Based on the HEARRING classification, complete, partial, and minimal HP was achieved in 7 ears (21%), 12 ears (35%), and 4 ears (12%), respectively. Under functional classification, 14 ears (41%) exhibited functional hearing after surgery. The average threshold shift was 17.1 dB HL (SD = 16.9 dB HL). Among various clinical features, a ≤ 60 dB HL preimplant pure-tone threshold of 250 Hz was associated with HP outcome in both classifications (OR = 12.95, 95% CI = 1.29-130.01, p = 0.029 in HEARRING classification; OR = 14.36, 95% CI = 1.07-191.40, p = 0.044 in functional classification). The following parameters were not associated with HP (p > 0.05): patient demographics, surgical aspects (insertion route and depth), electrode array size, scalar electrode position, and presence of comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

With LW electrode arrays, HP was achieved in 68% of HEARRRING group patients and 41% of functional classification patients. A ≤ 60 dB HL preimplant pure-tone threshold of 250 Hz was significantly associated with an increased rate of long-term HP.

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.

Bimodal cochlear implantation in elderly patients

OBJECTIVE

Bimodal stimulation is a standard option for asymmetric hearing loss in adults. Questions have been raised whether receiving two stimulations may conflict in elderly listeners where the central integration of an acoustic/electrical signal may be very important to obtain benefit in terms of speech perception.

DESIGN

Clinical retrospective study.

STUDY SAMPLE

The outcomes from 17 bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users were analysed. The test material consisted of speech audiometry in quiet and in noise (STARR and Matrix).

RESULTS

Bimodal PTA and speech perception both in quiet and in noise were significantly better than CI or HA alone. Age showed a significant effect on bimodal STARR outcomes. Similarly, bimodal STARR scores improved significantly in comparison to Better Ear.

CONCLUSION

Both Matrix and STARR tests were very difficult for many elderly CI listeners from the present study group, especially in unilateral listening condition. The performance improved significantly, emphasising a good integration of acoustic and electric hearing in this group of elderly bimodal listeners. Overall results highlighted how a specific study, based on speech perception in noise in the elderly listeners, might shed light on the effect of speech test modality on bimodal outcomes.

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.

Can Pitch Mismatch Be Diagnosed in Children Who Use Electric-Acoustic Stimulation?

Introduction

Pitch mismatch is one of the most important problems of users of bimodal cochlear implants, which affects their life satisfaction. Children with acquired hearing loss cannot explain their pitch mismatch problems, as they have had no auditory experience. This study tries to diagnose pitch mismatch in these children through the sound-induced flash illusion test.

Materials and methods

In this study, 20 children with a bimodal cochlear implant and 20 children with normal hearing, within the age range of 8 to 13 years old, were examined using the sound-induced flash illusion test. In this test, participants received one flash with one to four beep sounds, and they were asked to indicate the number of perceived flashes.

Results

The results revealed that in the bimodal implantation group, when the flash was provided with one beep, at certain frequencies, children expressed that they saw two flashes. However, the results were not the same in children with normal hearing.

Conclusion

The results indicated that at frequencies where the auditory information of the hearing aids and those of the cochlear implants overlap, pitch mismatch develops, which can significantly affect the auditory performance of bimodal users.

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

Purpose: The study's objectives were to (1) evaluate benefit from a novel bimodal fitting formula (Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal Fitting Formula [APDB]), and (2) compare outcomes with APDB and a traditional fitting formula (NAL-NL2). Methods: This prospective study evaluated outcomes in ten adults with unilateral Advanced Bionics (AB) cochlear implants (CI). Participants were tested bimodally with NAL-NL2 and APDB programed on Naída Link UP HAs. Measures of speech perception, sound quality, and preference were obtained with two bimodal configurations (CI + HANAL-NL2 and CI + HAAPDB). Participants used the CI + HAAPDB configuration for an acclimation period, after which measures were repeated. Results: Significant bimodal benefit was measured from both HA fitting formulae for speech perception in noise compared to the CI-only condition. Improved individual outcomes with the APDB were observed, but group differences were not statistically significant. Participants reported subjective benefit from APDB on blind comparisons of preference and sound quality. Conclusions: Significant benefit was found with both bimodal conditions compared to the CI-only condition; however, bimodal speech perception results were not significantly different. Users reported benefit from the APDB formula over NAL-NL2 formula. Due to individual improved speech perception and overall subjective preference for APDB, clinicians should consider APDB with AB CI recipients.

Clinical Application of Spectral Modulation Detection: Speech Recognition Benefit for Combining a Cochlear Implant and Contralateral Hearing Aid

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between speech recognition benefit derived from the addition of a hearing aid (HA) to the nonimplanted ear (i.e., bimodal benefit) and spectral modulation detection (SMD) performance in the nonimplanted ear in a large clinical sample. An additional purpose was to investigate the influence of low-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) of the nonimplanted ear and age at implantation on the variance in bimodal benefit. Method Participants included 311 unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users who wore an HA in the nonimplanted ear. Participants completed speech recognition testing in quiet and in noise with the CI-alone and in the bimodal condition (i.e., CI and contralateral HA) and SMD in the nonimplanted ear. Results SMD performance in the nonimplanted ear was significantly correlated with bimodal benefit in quiet and in noise. However, this relationship was much weaker than previous reports with smaller samples. SMD, low-frequency PTA of the nonimplanted ear from 125 to 750 Hz, and age at implantation together accounted for, at most, 19.1% of the variance in bimodal benefit. Conclusions Taken together, SMD, low-frequency PTA, and age at implantation account for the greatest amount of variance in bimodal benefit than each variable alone. A large portion of variance (~80%) in bimodal benefit is not explained by these variables. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12185493.

Effect of Scala Tympani Height on Insertion Depth of Straight Cochlear Implant Electrodes

OBJECTIVE

Studies suggest lateral wall (LW) scala tympani (ST) height decreases apically, which may limit insertion depth. No studies have investigated the relationship of LW ST height with translocation rate or location.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Cochlear implant program at tertiary referral center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

LW ST height was measured in preoperative images for patients with straight electrodes. Scalar location, angle of insertion depth (AID), and translocation depth were measured in postoperative images. Audiologic outcomes were tracked.

RESULTS

In total, 177 ears were identified with 39 translocations (22%). Median AID was 443° (interquartile range [IQR], 367°-550°). Audiologic outcomes (126 ears) showed a small, significant correlation between consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word score and AID (r = 0.20, P = .027), although correlation was insignificant if translocation occurred (r = 0.11, P = .553). Translocation did not affect CNC score (P = .335). AID was higher for translocated electrodes (503° vs 445°, P = .004). Median translocation depth was 381° (IQR, 222°-399°). Median depth at which a 0.5-mm electrode would not fit within 0.1 mm of LW was 585° (IQR, 405°-585°). Median depth at which a 0.5-mm electrode would displace the basilar membrane by ≥0.1 mm was 585° (IQR, 518°-765°); this was defined as predicted translocation depth (PTD). Translocation rate was 39% for insertions deeper than PTD and 14% for insertions shallower than PTD (P = .008).

CONCLUSION

AID and CNC are directly correlated for straight electrodes when not translocated. Translocations generally occur around 380° and are more common with deeper insertions due to decreasing LW ST height. Risk of translocation increases significantly after 580°.

Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of various measures of speech understanding in distinguishing performance differences between adult bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to provide a preliminary evidence-based tool guiding clinical decisions regarding bilateral CI candidacy.

DESIGN

This study used a multiple-baseline, cross-sectional design investigating speech recognition performance for 85 experienced adult CI recipients (49 bimodal, 36 bilateral). Speech recognition was assessed in a standard clinical test environment with a single loudspeaker using the minimum speech test battery for adult CI recipients as well as with an R-SPACE 8-loudspeaker, sound-simulation system. All participants were tested in three listening conditions for each measure including each ear alone as well as in the bilateral/bimodal condition. In addition, we asked each bimodal listener to provide a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?"

RESULTS

This study yielded three primary findings: (1) there were no significant differences between bimodal and bilateral CI performance or binaural summation on clinical measures of speech recognition, (2) an adaptive speech recognition task in the R-SPACE system revealed significant differences in performance and binaural summation between bimodal and bilateral CI users, with bilateral CI users achieving significantly better performance and greater summation, and (3) the patient's answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" held high sensitivity (100% hit rate) for identifying likely bilateral CI candidates and moderately high specificity (77% correct rejection rate) for correctly identifying listeners best suited with a bimodal hearing configuration.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinics cannot rely on current clinical measures of speech understanding, with a single loudspeaker, to determine bilateral CI candidacy for adult bimodal listeners nor to accurately document bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal hearing configuration. Speech recognition in a complex listening environment, such as R-SPACE, is a sensitive and appropriate measure for determining bilateral CI candidacy and also likely for documenting bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal configuration. In the absence of an available R-SPACE system, asking the patient whether or not s/he thinks s/he needs a second CI is a highly sensitive measure, which may prove clinically useful.

The Effect of Hearing Aid Bandwidth and Configuration of Hearing Loss on Bimodal Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine the effect of hearing aid (HA) bandwidth on bimodal speech perception in a group of unilateral cochlear implant (CI) patients with diverse degrees and configurations of hearing loss in the nonimplanted ear, (2) to determine whether there are demographic and audiometric characteristics that would help to determine the appropriate HA bandwidth for a bimodal patient.

DESIGN

Participants were 33 experienced bimodal device users with postlingual hearing loss. Twenty three of them had better speech perception with the CI than the HA (CI>HA group) and 10 had better speech perception with the HA than the CI (HA>CI group). Word recognition in sentences (AzBio sentences at +10 dB signal to noise ratio presented at 0° azimuth) and in isolation [CNC (consonant-nucleus-consonant) words] was measured in unimodal conditions [CI alone or HAWB, which indicates HA alone in the wideband (WB) condition] and in bimodal conditions (BMWB, BM2k, BM1k, and BM500) as the bandwidth of an actual HA was reduced from WB to 2 kHz, 1 kHz, and 500 Hz. Linear mixed-effect modeling was used to quantify the relationship between speech recognition and listening condition and to assess how audiometric or demographic covariates might influence this relationship in each group.

RESULTS

For the CI>HA group, AzBio scores were significantly higher (on average) in all bimodal conditions than in the best unimodal condition (CI alone) and were highest at the BMWB condition. For CNC scores, on the other hand, there was no significant improvement over the CI-alone condition in any of the bimodal conditions. The opposite pattern was observed in the HA>CI group. CNC word scores were significantly higher in the BM2k and BMWB conditions than in the best unimodal condition (HAWB), but none of the bimodal conditions were significantly better than the best unimodal condition for AzBio sentences (and some of the restricted bandwidth conditions were actually worse). Demographic covariates did not interact significantly with bimodal outcomes, but some of the audiometric variables did. For CI>HA participants with a flatter audiometric configuration and better mid-frequency hearing, bimodal AzBio scores were significantly higher than the CI-alone score with the WB setting (BMWB) but not with other bandwidths. In contrast, CI>HA participants with more steeply sloping hearing loss and poorer mid-frequency thresholds (≥82.5 dB) had significantly higher bimodal AzBio scores in all bimodal conditions, and the BMWB did not differ significantly from the restricted bandwidth conditions. HA>CI participants with mild low-frequency hearing loss showed the highest levels of bimodal improvement over the best unimodal condition on CNC words. They were also less affected by HA bandwidth reduction compared with HA>CI participants with poorer low-frequency thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

The pattern of bimodal performance as a function of the HA bandwidth was found to be consistent with the degree and configuration of hearing loss for both patients with CI>HA performance and for those with HA>CI performance. Our results support fitting the HA for all bimodal patients with the widest bandwidth consistent with effective audibility.

Bilateral Cochlear Implantation Versus Bimodal Hearing in Patients With Functional Residual Hearing: A Within-subjects Comparison of Audiologic Performance and Quality of Life

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate performance and quality of life changes after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in patients with preoperative residual hearing functioning in a bimodal hearing configuration.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis using within-subjects repeated measures design.

SETTING

Tertiary otologic center.

PATIENTS

Twenty-two adult patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who used bimodal hearing before second cochlear implant (CI) meeting the following criteria: 1) preoperative residual hearing (≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz) in the ear to be implanted, 2) implantation with current CI technology (2013-2016), 3) consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) speech recognition testing in the bimodal condition preoperatively and bilateral CI condition postoperatively.

INTERVENTION

Cochlear implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CNC and AzBio sentence scores in quiet and noise (+5 SNR). Subjective measures of communication difficulty and sound quality were also administered.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (mean 64 yr, 68% men) were included. At an average follow-up of 11.8 months, CNC scores in the bilateral CI condition (mean 63%, standard deviation [SD] = 22) were significantly better than preoperative bimodal scores with repeated measures analysis (mean 55%, SD = 22) (p = 0.03). AzBio scores in quiet were also higher with bilateral CI (mean 76%, SD = 24) compared with bimodal listening (mean 69%, SD = 29) (p = 0.0007). Global abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) and overall speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing (SSQ) scores exhibited significant improvement following bilateral implantation (p = 0.006 for both analyses).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients using a bimodal hearing configuration with substantial residual hearing in the non-CI ear, bilateral cochlear implantation yields improved audiologic performance and better subjective quality of life, irrespective of the ability to preserve acoustic hearing during the second sided implantation.

Intraoperative Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Measurements in Traditional and Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation

BACKGROUND

In current practice, the status of residual low-frequency acoustic hearing in hearing preservation cochlear implantation (CI) is unknown until activation two to three weeks postoperatively. The intraoperatively measured electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP), a synchronous response from electrically stimulated auditory nerve fibers, is one of the first markers of auditory nerve function after cochlear implant surgery and such may provide information regarding the status of residual low-frequency acoustic hearing.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between intraoperative ECAP at the time of CI and presence of preoperative and postoperative low-frequency acoustic hearing.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A retrospective case review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Two hundred seventeen adult ears receiving CI (42 Advanced Bionics, 82 Cochlear, and 93 MED-EL implants).

INTERVENTIONS

Intraoperative ECAP and CI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

ECAP measurements were obtained intraoperatively, whereas residual hearing data were obtained from postoperative CI activation audiogram. A linear mixed model test revealed no interaction effects for the following variables: manufacturer, electrode location (basal, middle, and apical), preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA), and postoperative LFPTA. The postoperative residual low-frequency hearing status was defined as preservation of unaided air conduction thresholds ≤90 dB at 250 Hz. Electrode location and hearing preservation data were analyzed individually for both the ECAP threshold and ECAP maximum amplitude using multiple t-tests, without assuming a consistent standard deviation between the groups, and with alpha correction.

RESULTS

The maximum amplitude, in microvolts, was significantly higher throughout apical and middle regions of the cochlea in patients who had preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing as compared with those who did not have preserved hearing (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0088, respectively). ECAP threshold, in microamperes, was significantly lower throughout the apical region of the cochlea in patients with preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing as compared with those without preserved hearing (p = 0.0099). Basal electrode maximum amplitudes and middle and basal electrode thresholds were not significantly correlated with postoperative low-frequency hearing.

CONCLUSIONS

Apical and middle electrode maximum amplitudes and apical electrode thresholds detected through intraoperative ECAP measurements are significantly correlated with preservation of low-frequency acoustic hearing. This association may represent a potential immediate feedback mechanism for postoperative outcomes that can be applied to all CIs.

Comparing Two Hearing Aid Fitting Algorithms for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the possible advantage of the use of a dedicated bimodal hearing aid fitting formula, the Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal (APDB), compared with a frequently used standard hearing aid fitting formula, the NAL-NL2. We evaluated the effects of bimodal hearing aid fitting on provided hearing aid gain and on bimodal auditory functioning in a group of experienced bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. A second aim of our study was to determine the effect of broadband loudness balancing on the prescribed gain of those two fitting formulas.

DESIGN

This prospective study used a crossover design in which two fitting methods were compared varying in basic prescription formula (NAL-NL2 or APDB fitting formula). The study consisted of a three-visit crossover design with 3 weeks between sessions. Nineteen postlingually deafened experienced bimodal CI users participated in this study. Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech in quiet test, a speech in noise test, and a questionnaire on auditory performance.

RESULTS

Significant differences between the two fitting formulas were found for frequencies of 2000 Hz and above. For these frequencies, less gain was provided by the APDB fitting formula compared with NAL-NL2. For the APDB fitting formula, a higher compression ratio for frequencies of 1000 Hz and above was found compared with the NAL-NL2 fitting formula. Loudness balancing did not result in large deviations from the prescribed gain by the initial fitting formula. Bimodal benefit was found for speech perception in quiet and for speech perception in noise. No differences in auditory performance were found between the two fitting formulas for any of the auditory performance tests.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that CI users with residual hearing at the contralateral ear can benefit from bimodal stimulation, regardless of the fitting method that was applied. Although significant differences between the output and compression ratio of the NAL-NL2 and the APDB fitting formula existed, no differences in bimodal auditory performance were observed. Therefore, NAL-NL2 or the APDB fitting prescription both seem suited for bimodal fitting purposes. Additional loudness balancing has a marginal effect on the provided hearing aid output.

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

Purpose The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit. Method This prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study. Results No differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization. Conclusion Our results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

Bilaterally Combined Electric and Acoustic Hearing in Mandarin-Speaking Listeners: The Population With Poor Residual Hearing

The hearing loss criterion for cochlear implant candidacy in mainland China is extremely stringent (bilateral severe to profound hearing loss), resulting in few patients with substantial residual hearing in the nonimplanted ear. The main objective of the current study was to examine the benefit of bimodal hearing in typical Mandarin-speaking implant users who have poorer residual hearing in the nonimplanted ear relative to those used in the English-speaking studies. Seventeen Mandarin-speaking bimodal users with pure-tone averages of ∼80 dB HL participated in the study. Sentence recognition in quiet and in noise as well as tone and word recognition in quiet were measured in monaural and bilateral conditions. There was no significant bimodal effect for word and sentence recognition in quiet. Small bimodal effects were observed for sentence recognition in noise (6%) and tone recognition (4%). The magnitude of both effects was correlated with unaided thresholds at frequencies near voice fundamental frequencies (F0s). A weak correlation between the bimodal effect for word recognition and unaided thresholds at frequencies higher than F0s was identified. These results were consistent with previous findings that showed more robust bimodal benefits for speech recognition tasks that require higher spectral resolution than speech recognition in quiet. The significant but small F0-related bimodal benefit was also consistent with the limited acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear of the current subject sample, who are representative of the bimodal users in mainland China. These results advocate for a more relaxed implant candidacy criterion to be used in mainland China.

Current Profile of Adults Presenting for Preoperative Cochlear Implant Evaluation

Considerable advancements in cochlear implant technology (e.g., electric acoustic stimulation) and assessment materials have yielded expanded criteria. Despite this, it is unclear whether individuals with better audiometric thresholds and speech understanding are being referred for cochlear implant workup and pursuing cochlear implantation. The purpose of this study was to characterize the mean auditory and demographic profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant workup. Data were collected prospectively for all adult preoperative workups at Vanderbilt from 2013 to 2015. Subjects included 287 adults (253 postlingually deafened) with a mean age of 62.3 years. Each individual was assessed using the minimum speech test battery, spectral modulation detection, subjective questionnaires, and cognitive screening. Mean consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores, AzBio sentence scores, and pure-tone averages for postlingually deafened adults were 10%, 13%, and 89 dB HL, respectively, for the ear to be implanted. Seventy-three individuals (25.4%) met labeled indications for Hybrid-L and 207 individuals (72.1%) had aidable hearing in the better hearing ear to be used in a bimodal hearing configuration. These results suggest that mean speech understanding evaluated at cochlear implant workup remains very low despite recent advancements. Greater awareness and insurance accessibility may be needed to make cochlear implant technology available to those who qualify for electric acoustic stimulation devices as well as individuals meeting conventional cochlear implant criteria.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

RESEARCH DESIGN

Repeated-measures design.

STUDY SAMPLE

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Bimodal Hearing in Individuals with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: Benefits, Challenges, and Management

Binaural hearing offers numerous advantages over monaural hearing. While bilateral implants are a successful treatment option for some patients, many individuals choose to achieve binaural hearing by using a cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid. Compared with monaural hearing, benefits of bimodal hearing include improved speech perception in quiet and in noise, improved localization, and more natural sound quality. Despite the advantages, there exist disadvantages to bimodal hearing, primarily related to binaural integration. Management of these devices can be challenging in that the hearing aid and cochlear implant may be managed by different clinicians. When fitting devices, strategies are recommended to optimize the integration of input from both devices. In managing bimodal devices, recommended outcomes measures include those that would reflect bimodal benefit, such as speech understanding in noise and spatial sound quality perception.

A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients

To evaluate whether speech recognition in noise differs according to whether a wireless remote microphone is connected to just the cochlear implant (CI) or to both the CI and to the hearing aid (HA) in bimodal CI users. The second aim was to evaluate the additional benefit of the directional microphone mode compared with the omnidirectional microphone mode of the wireless microphone. This prospective study measured Speech Recognition Thresholds (SRT) in babble noise in a 'within-subjects repeated measures design' for different listening conditions. Eighteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal CI users. No difference in speech recognition in noise in the bimodal listening condition was found between the wireless microphone connected to the CI only and to both the CI and the HA. An improvement of 4.1 dB was found for switching from the omnidirectional microphone mode to the directional mode in the CI only condition. The use of a wireless microphone improved speech recognition in noise for bimodal CI users. The use of the directional microphone mode led to a substantial additional improvement of speech perception in noise for situations with one target signal.

The Effect of Binaural Beamforming Technology on Speech Intelligibility in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Recipients

Although the benefit of bimodal listening in cochlear implant users has been agreed on, speech comprehension remains a challenge in acoustically complex real-life environments due to reverberation and disturbing background noises. One way to additionally improve bimodal auditory performance is the use of directional microphones. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a binaural beamformer for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. This prospective study measured speech reception thresholds (SRT) in noise in a repeated-measures design that varied in listening modality for static and dynamic listening conditions. A significant improvement in SRT of 4.7 dB was found with the binaural beamformer switched on in the bimodal static listening condition. No significant improvement was found in the dynamic listening condition. We conclude that there is a clear additional advantage of the binaural beamformer in bimodal CI users for predictable/static listening conditions with frontal target speech and spatially separated noise sources.

Dietrich M, Dorman MF. Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this study was to assess speech understanding in quiet and in diffuse noise for adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients utilizing bimodal hearing or bilateral CIs. Our primary hypothesis was that bilateral CI recipients would demonstrate less effect of source azimuth in the bilateral CI condition due to symmetric interaural head shadow.

METHOD

Sentence recognition was assessed for adult bilateral (n = 25) CI users and bimodal listeners (n = 12) in three conditions: (1) source location certainty regarding fixed target azimuth, (2) source location uncertainty regarding roving target azimuth, and (3) Condition 2 repeated, allowing listeners to turn their heads, as needed.

RESULTS

(a) Bilateral CI users exhibited relatively similar performance regardless of source azimuth in the bilateral CI condition; (b) bimodal listeners exhibited higher performance for speech directed to the better hearing ear even in the bimodal condition; (c) the unilateral, better ear condition yielded higher performance for speech presented to the better ear versus speech to the front or to the poorer ear; (d) source location certainty did not affect speech understanding performance; and (e) head turns did not improve performance. The results confirmed our hypothesis that bilateral CI users exhibited less effect of source azimuth than bimodal listeners. That is, they exhibited similar performance for speech recognition irrespective of source azimuth, whereas bimodal listeners exhibited significantly poorer performance with speech originating from the poorer hearing ear (typically the nonimplanted ear).

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral CI users overcame ear and source location effects observed for the bimodal listeners. Bilateral CI users have access to head shadow on both sides, whereas bimodal listeners generally have interaural asymmetry in both speech understanding and audible bandwidth limiting the head shadow benefit obtained from the poorer ear (generally the nonimplanted ear). In summary, we found that, in conditions with source location uncertainty and increased ecological validity, bilateral CI performance was superior to bimodal listening.

Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of electric and acoustic overlap for speech understanding in typical listening conditions using semidiffuse noise.

DESIGN

This study used a within-subjects, repeated measures design including 11 experienced adult implant recipients (13 ears) with functional residual hearing in the implanted and nonimplanted ear. The aided acoustic bandwidth was fixed and the low-frequency cutoff for the cochlear implant (CI) was varied systematically. Assessments were completed in the R-SPACE sound-simulation system which includes a semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from eight loudspeakers placed circumferentially about the subject's head. AzBio sentences were presented at 67 dBA with signal to noise ratio varying between +10 and 0 dB determined individually to yield approximately 50 to 60% correct for the CI-alone condition with full CI bandwidth. Listening conditions for all subjects included CI alone, bimodal (CI + contralateral hearing aid), and bilateral-aided electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS; CI + bilateral hearing aid). Low-frequency cutoffs both below and above the original "clinical software recommendation" frequency were tested for all patients, in all conditions. Subjects estimated listening difficulty for all conditions using listener ratings based on a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Three primary findings were that (1) there was statistically significant benefit of preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear for most overlap conditions, (2) the default clinical software recommendation rarely yielded the highest level of speech recognition (1 of 13 ears), and (3) greater EAS overlap than that provided by the clinical recommendation yielded significant improvements in speech understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

For standard-electrode CI recipients with preserved hearing, spectral overlap of acoustic and electric stimuli yielded significantly better speech understanding and less listening effort in a laboratory-based, restaurant-noise simulation. In conclusion, EAS patients may derive more benefit from greater acoustic and electric overlap than given in current software fitting recommendations, which are based solely on audiometric threshold. These data have larger scientific implications, as previous studies may not have assessed outcomes with optimized EAS parameters, thereby underestimating the benefit afforded by hearing preservation.

Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception

BACKGROUND

With improved surgical techniques and electrode design, an increasing number of cochlear implant (CI) recipients have preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear, thereby resulting in bilateral acoustic hearing. There are currently no guidelines, however, for clinicians with respect to audiometric criteria and the recommendation of amplification in the implanted ear. The acoustic bandwidth necessary to obtain speech perception benefit from acoustic hearing in the implanted ear is unknown. Additionally, it is important to determine if, and in which listening environments, acoustic hearing in both ears provides more benefit than hearing in just one ear, even with limited residual hearing.

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to (1) determine whether acoustic hearing in an ear with a CI provides as much speech perception benefit as an equivalent bandwidth of acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear, and (2) determine whether acoustic hearing in both ears provides more benefit than hearing in just one ear.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A repeated-measures, within-participant design was used to compare performance across listening conditions.

STUDY SAMPLE

Seven adults with CIs and bilateral residual acoustic hearing (hearing preservation) were recruited for the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Consonant-nucleus-consonant word recognition was tested in four conditions: CI alone, CI + acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear, CI + acoustic hearing in the implanted ear, and CI + bilateral acoustic hearing. A series of low-pass filters were used to examine the effects of acoustic bandwidth through an insert earphone with amplification. Benefit was defined as the difference among conditions. The benefit of bilateral acoustic hearing was tested in both diffuse and single-source background noise. RESULTS were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Similar benefit was obtained for equivalent acoustic frequency bandwidth in either ear. Acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear provided more benefit than the implanted ear only in the wideband condition, most likely because of better audiometric thresholds (>500 Hz) in the nonimplanted ear. Bilateral acoustic hearing provided more benefit than unilateral hearing in either ear alone, but only in diffuse background noise.

CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS support use of amplification in the implanted ear if residual hearing is present. The benefit of bilateral acoustic hearing (hearing preservation) should not be tested in quiet or with spatially coincident speech and noise, but rather in spatially separated speech and noise (e.g., diffuse background noise).

Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients

BACKGROUND

A coordinated fitting of a cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral hearing aid (HA) for bimodal device use should emphasize balanced audibility and loudness across devices. However, guidelines for allocating frequency information to the CI and HA are not well established for the growing population of bimodal recipients.

PURPOSE

The study aim was to compare the effects of three different HA frequency responses, when fitting a CI and an HA for bimodal use, on speech recognition and localization in children/young adults. Specifically, the three frequency responses were wideband, restricted high frequency, and nonlinear frequency compression (NLFC), which were compared with measures of word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, talker discrimination, and sound localization.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The HA frequency responses were evaluated using an A B₁ A B₂ test design: wideband frequency response (baseline-A), restricted high-frequency response (experimental-B₁), and NLFC-activated (experimental-B2). All participants were allowed 3-4 weeks between each test session for acclimatization to each new HA setting. Bimodal benefit was determined by comparing the bimodal score to the CI-alone score.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 14 children and young adults (ages 7-21 yr) who were experienced users of bimodal devices. All had been unilaterally implanted with a Nucleus CI24 internal system and used either a Freedom or CP810 speech processor. All received a Phonak Naida IX UP behind-the-ear HA at the beginning of the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Group results for the three bimodal conditions (HA frequency response with wideband, restricted high frequency, and NLFC) on each outcome measure were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Group results using the individual "best bimodal" score were analyzed and confirmed using a resampling procedure. Correlation analyses examined the effects of audibility (aided and unaided hearing) in each bimodal condition for each outcome measure. Individual data were analyzed for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and localization. Individual preference for the three bimodal conditions was also assessed.

RESULTS

Group data revealed no significant difference between the three bimodal conditions for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. However, group data for the localization measure revealed that both wideband and NLFC resulted in significantly improved bimodal performance. The condition that yielded the "best bimodal" score varied across participants. Because of this individual variability, the "best bimodal" score was chosen for each participant to reassess group data within word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. This method revealed a bimodal benefit for word recognition in quiet after a randomization test was used to confirm significance. The majority of the participants preferred NLFC at the conclusion of the study, although a few preferred a restricted high-frequency response or reported no preference.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support consideration of restricted high-frequency and NLFC HA responses in addition to traditional wideband response for bimodal device users.

Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the long-term benefits of implantation in patients with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, this report provides 5-year follow-up on a group of implant recipients who were subjects of the Cochlear™ Nucleus^® Hybrid™ L24 Implant System pivotal clinical study.

METHODS

The results of three related clinical studies were compiled to provide outcome data after 1, 3, and 5 years of implant use in a group of subjects who presented with preoperative high-frequency hearing loss and were implanted with a Nucleus Hybrid L24 (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia) cochlear implant. A subset of the 50 adult subjects (N = 32) who participated in the Hybrid L24 pivotal Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) completed comprehensive evaluations at 12 months postactivation, 3 years postactivation, and then as part of a postapproval study at 5 years postactivation. Testing included audiometric, speech perception, and subjective satisfaction measures.

RESULTS

Mean unilateral speech perception performance was significantly improved at all postoperative intervals compared to preoperative best-aided results and has remained stable to 5 years postactivation. Ninety-four percent of subjects had measurable hearing, and 72% continued to use electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear after 5 years of implant use. Subjective satisfaction results support objective performance improvements.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate long-term success of patients with high-frequency hearing loss following Hybrid L24 (Cochlear) cochlear implantation. Benefits include speech perception abilities significantly better than those in the preoperative best-aided condition, with additional benefit in those using electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b. Laryngoscope, 1939-1945, 2018.

The Effects of Acoustic Bandwidth on Simulated Bimodal Benefit in Children and Adults with Normal Hearing

OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of acoustic bandwidth on bimodal benefit for speech recognition in normal-hearing children with a cochlear implant (CI) simulation in one ear and low-pass filtered stimuli in the contralateral ear. The effect of acoustic bandwidth on bimodal benefit in children was compared with the pattern of adults with normal hearing. Our hypothesis was that children would require a wider acoustic bandwidth than adults to (1) derive bimodal benefit, and (2) obtain asymptotic bimodal benefit.

DESIGN

Nineteen children (6 to 12 years) and 10 adults with normal hearing participated in the study. Speech recognition was assessed via recorded sentences presented in a 20-talker babble. The AzBio female-talker sentences were used for the adults and the pediatric AzBio sentences (BabyBio) were used for the children. A CI simulation was presented to the right ear and low-pass filtered stimuli were presented to the left ear with the following cutoff frequencies: 250, 500, 750, 1000, and 1500 Hz.

RESULTS

The primary findings were (1) adults achieved higher performance than children when presented with only low-pass filtered acoustic stimuli, (2) adults and children performed similarly in all the simulated CI and bimodal conditions, (3) children gained significant bimodal benefit with the addition of low-pass filtered speech at 250 Hz, and (4) unlike previous studies completed with adult bimodal patients, adults and children with normal hearing gained additional significant bimodal benefit with cutoff frequencies up to 1500 Hz with most of the additional benefit gained with energy below 750 Hz.

CONCLUSIONS

Acoustic bandwidth effects on simulated bimodal benefit were similar in children and adults with normal hearing. Should the current results generalize to children with CIs, these results suggest pediatric CI recipients may derive significant benefit from minimal acoustic hearing (<250 Hz) in the nonimplanted ear and increasing benefit with broader bandwidth. Knowledge of the effect of acoustic bandwidth on bimodal benefit in children may help direct clinical decisions regarding a second CI, continued bimodal hearing, and even optimizing acoustic amplification for the nonimplanted ear.

Predictive factors for short- and long-term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The aims of this study were to investigate short- and long-term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

METHODS

Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes and air-conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively were included. Hearing preservation was defined as air-conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz.

RESULTS

The sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate of short-term hearing preservation was 38% (84/225), with 18% (33/188) of patients preserving hearing long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative hearing was predictive of hearing preservation at short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.95, P < .001) and long-term follow-up (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97, P < .001). Lateral wall electrodes and mid-scala electrodes had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4-8.6, P = .009) and 5.6-times (95% CI: 1.8-17.3, P = .003) higher odds of hearing preservation than perimodiolar arrays at short-term follow-up, respectively. Long-term data revealed better hearing preservation for lateral wall (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.6-36.1, P = .01), but not mid-scala (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.4-23.1, P = .28), when compared to perimodiolar electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches were associated with higher rates of long-term hearing preservation (21%) than cochleostomy approaches (0%) (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Better preoperative residual hearing, lateral wall electrodes, and RW/ERW approaches are predictive of higher rates of long-term functional hearing preservation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 128:482-489, 2018.

Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long-term benefit for cochlear implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective multi-center single-subject design.

METHODS

A total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre- and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences in +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index.

RESULTS

Performance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12-month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long-term postoperative speech recognition performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c. Laryngoscope, 127:2368-2374, 2017.

Monaural Beamforming in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users: Effect of (A)symmetric Directivity and Noise Type

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate monaural beamforming in bimodally aided cochlear implant (CI) users.

DESIGN

The study enrolled twelve adult bimodal listeners with at least six months of CI-experience and using a contralateral hearing aid (HA) most of the daytime. Participants were uniformly fitted with the same CI speech processor and HA, giving access to an identical monaural beamformer in both ears. A within-subject repeated measures design evaluated three directional configurations [omnidirectional, asymmetric directivity (in CI alone) and symmetric directivity (in both CI and HA)] in two noise types [stationary and fluctuating]. Bimodal speech reception thresholds (SRT) as well as listening effort ratings were assessed in a diffuse noise field.

RESULTS

Symmetric monaural beamforming provided a significant SRT improvement of 2.6 dB SNR, compared to 1.6 dB SNR for asymmetric monaural beamforming. Directional benefits were similarly observed in stationary and fluctuating noise. Directivity did not contribute to less listening effort in addition to improvement in speech intelligibility. Bimodal performance was about 7 dB SNR worse in fluctuating than in stationary noise.

CONCLUSIONS

Monaural beamforming provided substantial benefit for speech intelligibility in noise for bimodal listeners. The greatest benefit occurred when monaural beamforming was activated symmetrically in both CI and HA. Monaural beamforming does not bridge the gap between bimodal and normal hearing performance, especially in fluctuating noise. Results advocate further bimodal co-operation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in www.trialregister.nl under number NTR4901.

Robustness against distortion of fundamental frequency cues in simulated electro-acoustic hearing

Speech recognition by cochlear implant users can be improved by adding an audible low frequency acoustic signal to electrical hearing; the resulting improvement is deemed "electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) benefit." However, a crucial low frequency cue, fundamental frequency (F0), can be distorted via the impaired auditory system. In order to understand how F0 distortions may affect EAS benefit, normal-hearing listeners were presented monaurally with vocoded speech (frequencies >250 Hz) and an acoustical signal (frequencies <250 Hz) with differing manipulations of the F0 signal, specifically: a pure tone with the correct mean F0 but with smaller variations around this mean, or a narrowband of white noise centered around F0, at varying bandwidths; a pure tone down-shifted in frequency by 50 Hz but keeping overall frequency modulations. Speech-recognition thresholds improved when tones with reduced frequency modulation were presented, and improved significantly for noise bands maintaining F0 information. A down-shifted tone, or only a tone to indicate voicing, showed no EAS benefit. These results confirm that the presence of the target's F0 is beneficial for EAS hearing in a noisy environment, and they indicate that the benefit is robust to F0 distortion, as long as the mean F0 and frequency modulations of F0 are preserved.

Bimodal Hearing Aid Retention after Unilateral Cochlear Implantation

The goal of this study was to investigate contralateral hearing aid (HA) use after unilateral cochlear implantation and to identify factors of influence on the occurrence of a unilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipient becoming a bimodal user. A retrospective cross-sectional chart review was carried out among 77 adult unilateral CI recipients 1 year after implantation. A bimodal HA retention rate of 64% was observed. Associations with demographics, hearing history, residual hearing and speech recognition ability were investigated. Better pure-tone thresholds and unaided speech scores in the non-implanted ear, as well as a smaller difference in speech recognition scores between both ears, were significantly associated with HA retention. A combined model of HA retention was proposed, and cut-off points were determined to identify those CI recipients who were most likely to become bimodal users. These results can provide input to clinical guidelines concerning bimodal CI candidacy.

Mandarin speech perception in combined electric and acoustic stimulation

For deaf individuals with residual low-frequency acoustic hearing, combined use of a cochlear implant (CI) and hearing aid (HA) typically provides better speech understanding than with either device alone. Because of coarse spectral resolution, CIs do not provide fundamental frequency (F0) information that contributes to understanding of tonal languages such as Mandarin Chinese. The HA can provide good representation of F0 and, depending on the range of aided acoustic hearing, first and second formant (F1 and F2) information. In this study, Mandarin tone, vowel, and consonant recognition in quiet and noise was measured in 12 adult Mandarin-speaking bimodal listeners with the CI-only and with the CI+HA. Tone recognition was significantly better with the CI+HA in noise, but not in quiet. Vowel recognition was significantly better with the CI+HA in quiet, but not in noise. There was no significant difference in consonant recognition between the CI-only and the CI+HA in quiet or in noise. There was a wide range in bimodal benefit, with improvements often greater than 20 percentage points in some tests and conditions. The bimodal benefit was compared to CI subjects’ HA-aided pure-tone average (PTA) thresholds between 250 and 2000 Hz; subjects were divided into two groups: “better” PTA (<50 dB HL) or “poorer” PTA (>50 dB HL). The bimodal benefit differed significantly between groups only for consonant recognition. The bimodal benefit for tone recognition in quiet was significantly correlated with CI experience, suggesting that bimodal CI users learn to better combine low-frequency spectro-temporal information from acoustic hearing with temporal envelope information from electric hearing. Given the small number of subjects in this study (n = 12), further research with Chinese bimodal listeners may provide more information regarding the contribution of acoustic and electric hearing to tonal language perception.

Mandarin speech perception in combined electric and acoustic stimulation

For deaf individuals with residual low-frequency acoustic hearing, combined use of a cochlear implant (CI) and hearing aid (HA) typically provides better speech understanding than with either device alone. Because of coarse spectral resolution, CIs do not provide fundamental frequency (F0) information that contributes to understanding of tonal languages such as Mandarin Chinese. The HA can provide good representation of F0 and, depending on the range of aided acoustic hearing, first and second formant (F1 and F2) information. In this study, Mandarin tone, vowel, and consonant recognition in quiet and noise was measured in 12 adult Mandarin-speaking bimodal listeners with the CI-only and with the CI+HA. Tone recognition was significantly better with the CI+HA in noise, but not in quiet. Vowel recognition was significantly better with the CI+HA in quiet, but not in noise. There was no significant difference in consonant recognition between the CI-only and the CI+HA in quiet or in noise. There was a wide range in bimodal benefit, with improvements often greater than 20 percentage points in some tests and conditions. The bimodal benefit was compared to CI subjects' HA-aided pure-tone average (PTA) thresholds between 250 and 2000 Hz; subjects were divided into two groups: "better" PTA (<50 dB HL) or "poorer" PTA (>50 dB HL). The bimodal benefit differed significantly between groups only for consonant recognition. The bimodal benefit for tone recognition in quiet was significantly correlated with CI experience, suggesting that bimodal CI users learn to better combine low-frequency spectro-temporal information from acoustic hearing with temporal envelope information from electric hearing. Given the small number of subjects in this study (n = 12), further research with Chinese bimodal listeners may provide more information regarding the contribution of acoustic and electric hearing to tonal language perception.