Contralateral hearing aid use in cochlear implanted patients: multicenter study of bimodal benefit

[Audiological outcome of bimodal CI users over time and depending on different influencing factors]

BACKGROUND

Hearing-impaired persons with asymmetric hearing loss and a unilateral indication for a cochlear implant (CI) generally benefit from a bimodal hearing solution. The influence of bimodal fitting on speech comprehension (SC) over time has not yet been sufficiently investigated. The present study examines the influence of bimodal fitting on SC in bimodally fitted CI users with postlingual deafness at least 36 months after implantation and analyzes possible influencing factors.

METHODS

Included in this retrospective longitudinal study were 54 bimodally fitted speech-competent CI users with at least 36 months of CI experience. Audiometric data of these CI users at predefined timepoints were compared.

RESULTS

The change in the results of the Freiburg monosyllabic test (FT) over 36 months was significant (p < 5%) for the deafness group at <10 years for both the 65 dB sound pressure level (SPL) and at 80 dB SPL and also significant for the deafness group ≥10 years for 65 dB SPL. In the Oldenburg sentence test (OlSa) there was a highly significant change (p < 0.1%) for S0, S0N0, and S0NCI configurations and a very significant change (p < 1%) for S0NHA (HA: hearing aid). Age at implantation as a possible influencing factor could not be confirmed in the FT. In contrast, the duration of deafness was a negative influencing factor for SC with CI in the FT, whereas a longer duration of deafness was associated with worse results in the FT. The degree of hearing loss in the ear fitted with an HA did not influence SC. The median bimodal benefit (here: difference in SC with bimodal fitting compared to unilateral HA fitting for FT at 65 dB SPL) was 10% over the total study period. For a median of 79% of the test subjects, the bimodal benefit was found over the entire period of 36 months.

CONCLUSION

Over time, SC improves significantly with a CI for the bimodal test subjects. The investigated influencing factors (age, duration of deafness, and degree of hearing loss in the contralateral ear) support the indication for bimodal provision in accordance with the guideline in Germany for cochlear implantation-regardless of age, duration of deafness, and hearing ability of the contralateral ear.

A Consensus to Revise the Minimum Speech Test Battery-Version 3

PURPOSE

The Minimum Speech Test Battery (MSTB) for adults was introduced in 1996 (Nilsson et al., 1996) and subsequently updated in 2011 (Advanced-Bionics et al., 2011). The MSTB has been widely used by clinicians as a guide for cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluations and to document post-operative speech recognition performance. Due to changes in candidacy over the past 10 years, a revision to the MSTB was needed.

METHOD

In 2022, the Institute for Cochlear Implant Training (ICIT) recruited a panel of expert CI audiologists to update and revise the MSTB. This panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus process to revise the test battery and to improve its applicability considering recent changes in CI care.

RESULTS

This resulted in the MTSB-Version 3 (MSTB-3), which includes test protocols for identifying not only traditional CI candidates but also possible candidates for electric-acoustic stimulation and patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss. The MSTB-3 provides information that supplements the earlier versions of the MSTB, such as recommendations of when to refer patients for a CI, recommended patient-reported outcome measures, considerations regarding the use of cognitive screeners, and sample report templates for clinical documentation of pre- and post-operative care. Electronic versions of test stimuli, along with all the materials described above, will be available to clinicians via the ICIT website (https://www.cochlearimplanttraining.com).

CONCLUSION

The goal of the MSTB-3 is to be an evidence-based test battery that will facilitate a streamlined standard of care for adult CI candidates and recipients that will be widely used by CI clinicians.

Differences in music appreciation between bilateral and single-sided cochlear implant recipients

OBJECTIVE

To compare changes in music appreciation after cochlear implant (CI) surgery for patients with bilateral and single-sided deafness (SSD).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on all adult CI unilateral or bilateral recipients from November 2019 to March 2023. Musical questionnaire subset data from the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) - 35 Profile Instrument Score (maximum raw score of 15) was collected. Functional CI assessment was measured with CI-alone speech-in-quiet (SIQ) scores (AzBio and CNC).

RESULTS

22 adults underwent CI surgery for SSD and 21 adults for bilateral deafness (8 sequentially implanted). Every patient group had clinically significant improvements (p < 0.001) in mean SIQ scores in the most recently implanted ear (Azbio (% correct) SSD: 14.23 to 68.48, bilateral: 24.54 to 82.23, sequential: 6.25 to 82.57). SSD adults on average had higher music QOL scores at baseline (SSD: 11.05; bilateral: 7.86, p < 0.001). No group had significant increases in raw score at the first post-operative visit (SSD: 11.45, p = 0.86; bilateral: 8.15, p = 0.15). By the most recent post-implantation evaluation (median 12.8 months for SSD, 12.3 months for bilateral), SSD adults had a significant increase in raw score from baseline (11.05 to 12.45, p = 0.03), whereas bilaterally deafened (7.86 to 9.38, p = 0.12) adults had nonsignificant increases.

CONCLUSIONS

SSD patients demonstrate higher baseline music appreciation than bilaterally deafened individuals regardless of unilateral or bilateral implantation and are more likely to demonstrate continued improvement in subjective music appreciation at last follow-up even when speech perception outcomes are similar.

Assessment of Binaural Benefits in Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to (a) investigate which speech material is most appropriate as stimulus in head shadow effect (HSE) and binaural squelch (SQ) tests, (b) obtain normative values of both tests using the material decided to be optimal, and (c) explore the results in bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users.

METHOD

Study participants consisted of 30 normal-hearing (NH) persons and 34 bilateral CI users. This study consisted of three phases. In the first phase, three different speech materials (1) monosyllabic words, (2) spondee words, and (3) sentences were compared in terms of (a) effect size, (b) test-retest reliability, and (c) interindividual variability. In the second phase, the speech material selected in the first phase was used to test a further 24 NHs to obtain normative values for both tests. In the third phase, tests were administered to a further 23 bilateral CI users, together with localization test and the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale.

RESULTS

The results of the first phase indicated that spondees and sentences were more robust materials compared with monosyllables. Although the effect size and interindividual variability were comparable for spondees and sentences, sentences had higher test-retest reliability in this sample of CI users. With sentences, the mean (± standard deviation) HSE and SQ in the NH group were 58 ± 14% and 22 ± 11%, respectively. In the CI group, the mean HSE and SQ were 49 ± 13% and 13 ± 14%, respectively. There were no statistically significant correlations between the test results and the interval between the implantations, the length of binaural listening experience, or the asymmetry between the ears.

CONCLUSIONS

Sentences are preferred as stimulus material in the binaural HSE and SQ tests. Normative data are given for HSE and SQ with the LiCoS (linguistically controlled sentences) test. HSE is present for all bilateral CI users, whereas SQ is present in approximately seven out of 10 cases.

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

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

Role of cochlear reserve in adults with cochlear implants following post-lingual hearing loss

INTRODUCTION

Pre-operative assessments before cochlear implantation (CI) includes the examination of both tone hearing, and the level of the cochlear reserve indicated by speech understanding. The goal of this study was to explore the predictive influence of tone hearing and cochlear reserve in CI.

METHODS

We did a retrospective cohort study, which included adult patients who had undergone CI between January 2012 and December 2019 in a tertiary care center. The pre-operative tone hearing, unaided maximum monosyllabic word recognition score (WRSmax), aided hearing gain, aided monosyllabic word recognition score at 65 dB (WRS65(HA)), and speech perception gap (SPG) were measured. The duration of unaided hearing loss (UHL) was also assessed. These variables were compared with post-operative monosyllabic word recognition score after CI at 65 dB (WRS65(CI)).

RESULTS

103 patients and 128 ears were included in this study. Regardless of tone hearing, patients with better pre-operative WRSmax and WRS65(HA) performed better post-operatively. WRSmax was found to be the most important factor that was statistically significantly associated with WRS65(CI). SPG was statistically significantly associated with WRSmax and SPG ≥ 20% group performed better post-operatively. Any duration of unaided hearing loss was statistically significantly inversely associated with WRSmax above 0%.

CONCLUSION

Cochlear reserve represented by WRSmax may play the most important role as a predictive factor in outcomes after CI. SPG should be considered for indicating CI in patients, when WRS65(HA) does not reach WRSmax. Early rehabilitation with hearing aids and duration of hearing aid usage might play an important role in preserving cochlear reserve in adults.

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.

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.

Systematic review of cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetrical hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Rapid advances in cochlear implantation has witnessed an expanding spectrum for candidacy worldwide. This includes a subgroup of adults with asymmetrical hearing loss who have a wide range in their hearing capacity between the two ears. As per guidelines they are not included in mainstream candidacy for CI across the world. Evidence is now emerging to support the benefits of CI in AHL.

METHODS

This review analyzed literature regarding the outcomes of CI in AHL. Primary outcome measure was to assess audiological benefits and secondary outcome measure was to assess hearing related quality of life. 15 relevant articles, published worldwide between 2009 and 2019 were chosen. CASP checklist for systematic reviews was used to ascertain the quality of literature. The strength of recommendations from each study was analyzed and classified as strong, moderate, weak or none based on GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Heterogeneity in samples was obvious and samples varied largely between the studies. The levels of evidence ranged from systematic review to expert opinion, but overall they reflected positively on both audiological and QOL benefits.

CONCLUSION

CI provides important auditory and QOL benefits in AHL, but there is no high level evidence as yet to strongly support CI for AHL. A long term multi-centric study is necessary to influence a change in practice for a growing population of AHL.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03052920.

Integrated Bimodal Fitting for Unilateral CI Users with Residual Contralateral Hearing

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare, in users of bimodal cochlear implants, the performance obtained using their own hearing aids (adjusted with the standard NAL-NL1 fitting formula) with the performance using the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aid adjusted with both NAL-NL1 and a new bimodal system (Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal (APDB)) developed by Advanced Bionics and Phonak Corporations.

METHODS

Eleven bimodal users (Naìda CI Q70 + contralateral hearing aid) were enrolled in our study. The users' own hearing aids were replaced with the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power and fitted following the new formula. Speech intelligibility was assessed in quiet and noisy conditions, and comparisons were made with the results obtained with the users' previous hearing aids and with the Naída Link hearing aids fitted with the NAL-NL1 generic prescription formula.

RESULTS

Using Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aids with the Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal fitting formula, performance was significantly better than that with the users' own rehabilitation systems, especially in challenging hearing situations for all analyzed subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Speech intelligibility tests in quiet settings did not reveal a significant difference in performance between the new fitting formula and NAL-NL1 fittings (using the Naída Link hearing aids), whereas the performance difference between the two fittings was very significant in noisy test conditions.

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

Objective

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

Design

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

Study sample

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Are There Real-world Benefits to Bimodal Listening?

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study between groups.

SETTING

Outpatient hearing clinic.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of Monaural Asymmetry and Target-Masker Similarity on Binaural Advantage in Children and Adults With Normal Hearing

Purpose For colocated targets and maskers, binaural listening typically offers a small but significant advantage over monaural listening. This study investigated how monaural asymmetry and target-masker similarity may limit binaural advantage in adults and children. Method Ten Mandarin-speaking Chinese adults (aged 22-27 years) and 12 children (aged 7-14 years) with normal hearing participated in the study. Monaural and binaural speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were adaptively measured for colocated competing speech. The target-masker sex was the same or different. Performance was measured using headphones for three listening conditions: left ear, right ear, and both ears. Binaural advantage was calculated relative to the poorer or better ear. Results Mean SRTs were significantly lower for adults than children. When the target-masker sex was the same, SRTs were significantly lower with the better ear than with the poorer ear or both ears (p < .05). When the target-masker sex was different, SRTs were significantly lower with the better ear or both ears than with the poorer ear (p < .05). Children and adults similarly benefitted from target-masker sex differences. Substantial monaural asymmetry was observed, but the effects of asymmetry on binaural advantage were similar between adults and children. Monaural asymmetry was significantly correlated with binaural advantage relative to the poorer ear (p = .004), but not to the better ear (p = .056). Conclusions Binaural listening may offer little advantage (or even a disadvantage) over monaural listening with the better ear, especially when competing talkers have similar vocal characteristics. Monaural asymmetry appears to limit binaural advantage in listeners with normal hearing, similar to observations in listeners with hearing impairment. While language development may limit perception of competing speech, it does not appear to limit the effects of monaural asymmetry or target-masker sex on binaural advantage.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bimodal Stimulation Compared to Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Bilateral Severe to Profound Deafness

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of severe-profoundly deaf adult unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users receive bimodal stimulation; that is, they use a conventional acoustic hearing aid (HA) in their nonimplanted ear. The combination of electric and contralateral acoustic hearing provides additional benefits to hearing and also to general health-related quality of life compared with unilateral CI use. Bilateral CI is a treatment alternative to both unilateral CI and bimodal stimulation in some healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of bimodal stimulation compared with other management options for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness.

DESIGN

The economic evaluation took the form of a cost-utility analysis and compared bimodal stimulation (CI+HA) to two treatment alternatives: unilateral and bilateral CI. The analysis used a public healthcare system perspective based on data from the United Kingdom and the United States. Costs and health benefits were identified for both alternatives and estimated across a patient's lifetime using Markov state transition models. Utilities were based on Health Utilities Index estimates, and health outcomes were expressed in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The results were presented using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio and the Net Monetary Benefit approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of bimodal stimulation. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the degree of overall uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulation. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and analysis of covariance identified parameters to which the model was most sensitive; that is, whose values had a strong influence on the intervention that was determined to be most cost-effective. A value of information analysis was performed to determine the potential value to be gained from additional research on bimodal stimulation.

RESULTS

The base case model showed that bimodal stimulation was the most cost-effective treatment option with a decision certainty of 72 and 67% in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively. Despite producing more QALYs than either unilateral CI or bimodal stimulation, bilateral CI was found not to be cost-effective because it was associated with excessive costs. Compared with unilateral CI, the increased costs of bimodal stimulation were outweighed by the gain in quality of life. Bimodal stimulation was found to cost an extra £174 per person in the United Kingdom ($937 in the US) and yielded an additional 0.114 QALYs compared with unilateral CI, resulting in an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of £1521 per QALY gained in the United Kingdom ($8192/QALY in the United States). The most influential variable was the utility gained from the simultaneous use of both devices (CI+HA) compared with Unilateral CI. The value of further research was £4,383,922 at £20,000/QALY ($86,955,460 at $50,000/QALY in the United States).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of the most cost-effective treatment alternative for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness from publicly funded healthcare perspectives of the United Kingdom and United States. Bimodal stimulation was found to be more cost-effective than unilateral and bilateral CI across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. If there is scope for future research, conducting interventional designs to obtain utilities for bimodal stimulation compared with unilateral CI would reduce decision uncertainty considerably.

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

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

Hearing Impairment and Quality of Life in Adults with Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Benefits of Bimodal Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

Bimodal stimulation for asymmetric hearing loss is an emerging treatment with proven audiometric outcomes. Our objectives are to assess the changes of the hearing impairment and the quality of life of patients treated with this type of stimulation, when compared to a unilateral Cochlear Implant (CI) stimulated condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

31 patients with asymmetric hearing loss (Group 1) were recruited for the study. They were divided into three groups, based on their hearing loss in the ear treated with the hearing aid: Group 1A (Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) between 41 and 70 decibels (dB)); Group 1B, (PTA between 71 and 80 dB) and Group 1C (PTA between 81 and 90 dB). 30 patients had profound, bilateral hearing loss. Then, users of a unilateral cochlear implant were recruited for the control group. Their hearing impairment and quality of life were analyzed with questionnaires Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Health Utilities Index (HUI). They were followed up for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The group with the asymmetric hearing loss obtains a statistically significant clinical improvement in the APHAB under category "with hearing aid" compared to "without hearing aid". The group with the asymmetric hearing loss benefits more across basically all variables compared with the control group in the SSQ. Group 1A obtains the best outcome of the sample in the HUI.

CONCLUSION

Bimodal stimulation and better hearing in the ear treated with the hearing aid reduce hearing impairment and improve the quality of life.

Effect of (Mis)Matched Compression Speed on Speech Recognition in Bimodal Listeners

Automatic gain control (AGC) compresses the wide dynamic range of sounds to the narrow dynamic range of hearing-impaired listeners. Setting AGC parameters (time constants and knee points) is an important part of the fitting of hearing devices. These parameters do not only influence overall loudness elicited by the hearing devices but can also affect the recognition of speech in noise. We investigated whether matching knee points and time constants of the AGC between the cochlear implant and the hearing aid of bimodal listeners would improve speech recognition in noise. We recruited 18 bimodal listeners and provided them all with the same cochlear-implant processor and hearing aid. We compared the matched AGCs with the default device settings with mismatched AGCs. As a baseline, we also included a condition with the mismatched AGCs of the participants' own devices. We tested speech recognition in quiet and in noise presented from different directions. The time constants affected outcomes in the monaural testing condition with the cochlear implant alone. There were no specific binaural performance differences between the two AGC settings. Therefore, the performance was mostly dependent on the monaural cochlear implant alone condition.

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.

Comparison of bimodal benefit for the use of DSL v5.0 and NAL-NL2 in cochlear implant listeners

Objective: For a group of bimodal subjects with moderate to severe hearing loss contralateral to the cochlear implant (CI), the bimodal benefit of the hearing aid (HA) gain prescriptions DSL v5.0, NAL-NL2 and the recipients' own gain setting were assessed.Design: Speech perception in quiet and in noise as well as self-reported ratings of benefit were determined for all three gain-settings. Speech tests were performed in the bimodal, the HA alone and the CI alone condition. The bimodal benefit was assessed for each prescription as the difference score of the bimodal condition and the better ear.Study Sample: Twenty adults with post-lingual hearing loss.Results: Speech perception with DSL v5.0 was significantly higher compared to NAL-NL2 and the own prescription in both quiet and noise. The median bimodal benefit was highest for DSL v5.0 with an average of 15 percentage points for both words in quiet and sentences in noise.Conclusions: DSL v5.0 and NAL-NL2 are both suitable for HA fitting in bimodal users. For subjects with moderate to severe hearing loss and HA experience contralateral to the implanted side, DSL v5.0 may provide better speech perception and bimodal benefit.

Evidence-Based Recommendation for Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults

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

Effectiveness and efficiency of a dedicated bimodal fitting formula

The population of unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users with aidable residual hearing in the contralateral ear is continuously growing. Aiding the contralateral ear with a hearing aid has been shown to provide substantial benefit regarding speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise, sound quality, localization ability and listening effort. In this study, a dedicated hearing aid with the accompanying fitting prescription, tailored to the needs of bimodal listeners was evaluated in nine bimodal CI users. Speech intelligibility scores in noise revealed on-par performance of the dedicated bimodal fitting compared to the clinical standard prescription. 78% of the bimodal CI users preferred the dedicated bimodal fitting over the clinical standard. The minimal subject-specific finetuning effort required during the dedicated bimodal fitting process emphasizes the clinical efficiency.

Investigating Speech Recognition and listening effort with different device configurations in adult cochlear implant users

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate speech recognition in noise and listening effort among a group of adults with cochlear implants (CIs). Two main research questions were addressed. First, what are the effects of omni versus directional microphone configuration on speech recognition and listening effort for noisy conditions? Second, what is the effect of unilateral versus bimodal or bilateral CI listening on speech recognition and listening effort in noisy conditions?

DESIGN

Sixteen adults (mean age 58 years) with CIs participated. Listening effort was measured using a dual-task paradigm and also using a self-reported rating of difficulty scale. In the dual-task measure, participants were asked to repeat monosyllabic words while at the same time press a button in response to a visual stimulus. Participants were tested in two baseline conditions (speech perception alone and visual task alone) and in the following experimental conditions: (1) quiet with an omnidirectional microphone, (2) noise with an omnidirectional microphone, (3) noise with a directional microphone, and (4) noise with a directional microphone and with a second sided CI or hearing aid. When present, the noise was fixed with a +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. After each listening condition, the participants rated the degree of listening difficulty.

RESULTS

Changing the microphone from omni to directional mode significantly enhanced speech recognition in noise performance. There were no significant changes in speech recognition between the unilateral and bimodal/bilateral CI listening conditions. Listening effort, as measured by reaction time, increased significantly between the baseline and omnidirectional quiet listening condition though did not change significantly across the remaining listening conditions. Self-perceived listening effort revealed a greater effort for the noisy conditions, and reduced effort with the move from an omni to a directional microphone.

CONCLUSIONS

Directional microphones significantly improve speech in noise recognition over omnidirectional microphones and allowed for decreased self-perceived listening effort. The dual task used in this study failed to show any differences in listening effort across the experimental conditions and may not be sensitive enough to detect changes in listening effort.

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.

How to Optimally Fit a Hearing Aid for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Bimodal hearing has shown to improve speech recognition in quiet and in noise and to improve sound localization compared with unilateral cochlear implant (CI) use alone. Fitting the CI and hearing aid (HA) separately has been described well, but HA fitting procedures for bimodal CI users are not well researched or widely accepted. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of different HA fitting strategies on auditory performance in bimodal CI users.

DESIGN

Original articles, written in English, were identified through systematic searches in Medline (OvidSP), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed publisher, and Google Scholar. The quality of the studies was assessed on five aspects: methodologic quality (with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies score), number of subjects, quality of the description of contralateral hearing loss, quality of HA verification, and direct comparison of HA fitting procedures based on auditory performance.

RESULTS

A total of 1665 records were retrieved, of which 17 were included for systematical reviews. Critical appraisal led to three high-quality studies, 10 medium-quality studies, and four low-quality studies. The results of the studies were structured according to four topics: frequency response, frequency translation/transposition, dynamic range compression, and loudness. In general, a bimodal benefit was found in most studies, using various strategies for the HA fitting. Using a standard prescription rule such as National Acoustics Laboratory formula-non-linear 1, National Acoustics Laboratory formula-non-linear 2, or desired sensation level is a good starting point in children and adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a bimodal benefit was found in most studies, there is no clear evidence how certain choices in HA fitting contribute to optimal bimodal performance. A generally accepted HA prescription rule is an essential part of most fitting procedures used in the studies. Current evidence suggests that frequency lowering or transposition is not beneficial. Individual fine tuning based on loudness or general preference is often applied, but its additional value for auditory performance should be investigated more thoroughly. Good quality comparative studies are needed to further develop evidence-based fitting procedures in case of bimodal listening.

Results in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients With Varied Asymmetric Hearing: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Speech Recognition, Localization, and Participant Report

OBJECTIVES

Asymmetric hearing with severe to profound hearing loss (SPHL) in one ear and better hearing in the other requires increased listening effort and is detrimental for understanding speech in noise and sound localization. Although a cochlear implant (CI) is the only treatment that can restore hearing to an ear with SPHL, current candidacy criteria often disallows this option for patients with asymmetric hearing. The present study aimed to evaluate longitudinal performance outcomes in a relatively large group of adults with asymmetric hearing who received a CI in the poor ear.

DESIGN

Forty-seven adults with postlingual hearing loss participated. Test materials included objective and subjective measures meant to elucidate communication challenges encountered by those with asymmetric hearing. Test intervals included preimplant and 6 and 12 months postimplant. Preimplant testing was completed in participants' everyday listening condition: bilateral hearing aids (HAs) n = 9, better ear HA n = 29, and no HA n = 9; postimplant, each ear was tested separately and in the bimodal condition.

RESULTS

Group mean longitudinal results in the bimodal condition postimplant compared with the preimplant everyday listening condition indicated significantly improved sentence scores at soft levels and in noise, improved localization, and higher ratings of communication function by 6 months postimplant. Group mean, 6-month postimplant results were significantly better in the bimodal condition compared with either ear alone. Audibility and speech recognition for the poor ear alone improved significantly with a CI compared with preimplant. Most participants had clinically meaningful benefit on most measures. Contributory factors reported for traditional CI candidates also impacted results for this population. In general, older participants had poorer bimodal speech recognition in noise and localization abilities than younger participants. Participants with early SPHL onset had better bimodal localization than those with later SPHL onset, and participants with longer SPHL duration had poorer CI alone speech understanding in noise but not in quiet. Better ear pure-tone average (PTA) correlated with all speech recognition measures in the bimodal condition. To understand the impact of better ear hearing on bimodal performance, participants were grouped by better ear PTA: group 1 PTA ≤40 dB HL (n = 19), group 2 PTA = 41 to 55 dB HL (n = 14), and group 3 PTA = 56 to 70 dB HL (n = 14). All groups showed bimodal benefit on speech recognition measures in quiet and in noise; however, only group 3 obtained benefit when noise was toward the CI ear. All groups showed improved localization and ratings of perceived communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving a CI for the poor ear was an effective treatment for this population. Improved audibility and speech recognition were evident by 6 months postimplant. Improvements in sound localization and self-reports of communication benefit were significant and not related to better ear hearing. Participants with more hearing in the better ear (group 1) showed less bimodal benefit but greater bimodal performance for speech recognition than groups 2 and 3. Test batteries for this population should include quality of life measures, sound localization, and adaptive speech recognition measures with spatially separated noise to capture the hearing loss deficits and treatment benefits reported by this patient population.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Bimodal benefit for cochlear implant listeners with different grades of hearing loss in the opposite ear

OBJECTIVE

To determine speech perception in quiet and noise of adult cochlear implant listeners retaining a hearing aid contralaterally. Second, to investigate the influence of contralateral hearing thresholds and speech perception on bimodal hearing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sentence recognition with hearing aid alone, cochlear implant alone and bimodally at 6 months after cochlear implantation were assessed in 148 postlingually deafened adults. Data were analyzed for bimodal summation using measures of speech perception in quiet and in noise.

RESULTS

Most of the subjects showed improved sentence recognition in quiet and in noise in the bimodal condition compared to the hearing aid-only or cochlear implant-only mode. The large variability of bimodal benefit in quiet can be partially explained by the degree of pure tone loss. Also, subjects with better hearing on the acoustic side experience significant benefit from the additional electrical input.

CONCLUSIONS

Bimodal summation shows different characteristics in quiet and noise. Bimodal benefit in quiet depends on hearing thresholds at higher frequencies as well as in the lower- and middle-frequency ranges. For the bimodal benefit in noise, no correlation with hearing threshold in any frequency range was found.

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.

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.

Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid

Ninety-four unilateral CI patients with bimodal listening experience (CI plus HA in contralateral ear) completed a questionnaire that focused on attitudes toward hearing aid use postimplantation, patterns of usage, and perceived bimodal benefits in daily life. Eighty participants continued HA use and 14 discontinued HA use at the time of the questionnaire. Participant responses provided useful information for counseling patients both before and after implantation. The majority of continuing bimodal (CI plus HA) participants reported adapting to using both devices within 3 months and also reported that they heard better bimodally in quiet, noisy, and reverberant conditions. They also perceived benefits including improved sound quality, better music enjoyment, and sometimes a perceived sense of acoustic balance. Those who discontinued HA use found either that using the HA did not provide additional benefit over the CI alone or that using the HA degraded the signal from the CI. Because there was considerable overlap in the audiograms and in speech recognition performance in the unimplanted ear between the two groups, we recommend that unilateral CI recipients are counseled to continue to use the HA in the contralateral ear postimplantation in order to determine whether or not they receive functional or perceived benefit from using both devices together.

Speech Recognition and Cognitive Skills in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

PURPOSE

To examine the relation between speech recognition and cognitive skills in bimodal cochlear implant (CI) and hearing aid users.

METHOD

Seventeen bimodal CI users (28-74 years) were recruited to the study. Speech recognition tests were carried out in quiet and in noise. The cognitive tests employed included the Reading Span Test and the Trail Making Test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Reitan, 1958, 1992), measuring working memory capacity and processing speed and executive functioning, respectively. Data were analyzed using paired-sample t tests, Pearson correlations, and partial correlations controlling for age.

RESULTS

The results indicate that performance on some cognitive tests predicts speech recognition and that bimodal listening generates a significant improvement in speech in quiet compared to unilateral CI listening. However, the current results also suggest that bimodal listening requires different cognitive skills than does unimodal CI listening. This is likely to relate to the relative difficulty of having to integrate 2 different signals and then map the integrated signal to representations stored in the long-term memory.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though participants obtained speech recognition benefit from bimodal listening, the results suggest that processing bimodal stimuli involves different cognitive skills than does unimodal conditions in quiet. Thus, clinically, it is important to consider this when assessing treatment outcomes.

Binaural squelch and head shadow effects in children with unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids

The aim of this study was to investigate the amount of binaural squelch effect (BSE) and head shadow effect (HSE) in children who use unilateral cochlear implants (CI) and contralateral hearing aids (HA). The study group consisted of 19 CI recipient children who consistently wore a contralateral HA. Speech sounds were used to evaluate speech perception performance in noise. Testing was performed in three listening conditions: (1) bimodal listening with noise source on HA side; (2) CI only with noise source contralaterally (HA off); (3) CI only with noise source on the CI side. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the three listening conditions and post hoc tests indicated significant differences for all pairwise comparisons (p < 0.001). The average BSE and HSE were 11.8% and 17.1% respectively. The majority of bimodal CI users showed BSE and HSE with significant speech perception improvement in the presence of noise.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Contralateral Bimodal Stimulation: A Way to Enhance Speech Performance in Arabic-Speaking Cochlear Implant Patients

BACKGROUND

The combination of acoustic and electric stimulation as a way to enhance speech recognition performance in cochlear implant (CI) users has generated considerable interest in the recent years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bimodal advantage of the FS4 speech processing strategy in combination with hearing aids (HA) as a means to improve low-frequency resolution in CI patients.

METHODS

Nineteen postlingual CI adults were selected to participate in this study. All patients wore implants on one side and HA on the contralateral side with residual hearing. Monosyllabic word recognition, speech in noise, and emotion and talker identification were assessed using CI with fine structure processing/FS4 and high-definition continuous interleaved sampling strategies, HA alone, and a combination of CI and HA.

RESULTS

The bimodal stimulation showed improvement in speech performance and emotion identification for the question/statement/order tasks, which was statistically significant compared to patients with CI alone, but there were no significant statistical differences in intragender talker discrimination and emotion identification for the happy/angry/neutral tasks. The poorest performance was obtained with HA only, and it was statistically significant compared to the other modalities.

CONCLUSION

The bimodal stimulation showed enhanced speech performance in CI patients, and it improves the limitations provided by electric or acoustic stimulation alone.

Which ear should we choose for cochlear implantation in the elderly: The poorer or the better? Audiometric outcomes, quality of sound, and quality-of-life results

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation in the poorer ear of an elderly patient does not predict poorer post-operative audiological, quality-of-life (QoL), and quality of sound results.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether choosing the 'better' or the 'poorer' ear for cochlear implantation impacts performance outcome in an elderly population.

METHODS

Forty-two out of 73 elderly (≥ 60 years) cochlear implant users with some residual hearing in at least one ear were selected. Three criteria were used to group the patients as 'better' or 'poorer' ear implanted; (C1) based on previous use of hearing aid, (C2) pre-operative PTA, and (C3) pre-operative speech discrimination. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI) were used to measure QoL and quality of sound, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean post-operative PTA was 38.7 ± 7.2 dBHL. In quiet, the mean disyllabic SDS at 65dBSPL was 75.4 ± 18.5, whereas the discrimination of sentences was 95.0% ± 6.9. The mean total GBI score was 30.9 ± 21.8, 92.9% of patients reporting a positive score. The mean HISQUI score was 111.3 ± 36.0, which corresponds to 'moderate' sound quality. No significant differences were found between both groups in terms of audiological outcomes, HISQUI scores or GBI scores when considering each of the three criteria.

Criteria for Selecting an Optimal Device for the Contralateral Ear of Children with a Unilateral Cochlear Implant

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinical criteria for selecting the aiding device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI).

METHODS

Sixty-five children, including 36 bilateral CI users and 29 bimodal users, participated in the study. A speech perception test (monosyllabic word test) in noise was administered. The target speech (65 dB sound pressure level) was presented from the front loudspeaker, and noise (10 dB signal-to-noise ratio) was presented from 3 directions: from in front of the child and 90° to the child's right and left sides. The test was performed using the first CI alone and under bilateral CI or bimodal conditions. The bilateral benefits to speech perception in noise were compared between bilateral CI users and bimodal users.

RESULTS

Significant benefits in speech perception in noise were evident in bilateral CI users in all 3 noise conditions. In bimodal users, the hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz in the nonimplanted ear affected the bilateral benefit. Bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold ≤90 dB hearing level (HL) showed a significant bilateral benefit in various noise conditions. By contrast, bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL showed no significant bilateral benefits in all 3 noise conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral CI and bimodal listening provide better speech perception in noise than unilateral CI alone in children. The contralateral CI is better than bimodal listening for children with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL. A hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz may be a good criterion for deciding on the type of device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral CI.

Functional Neuroimaging Studies in Asymmetric Hearing Loss

This article presents an analysis of the impact of functional neuroimaging studies (positron emission tomography, PET) in asymmetric hearing loss based on the clinical expertise obtained from a group of 21 patients. In these patients, PET studies are performed at rest and after auditory stimulation in order to measure the increase in brain activity in the ipsi- and contralateral cortex, providing supporting evidence to recommend a specific treatment and the side to implant. In conclusion, PET is a useful tool for selected cases in which information on the metabolic status of the auditory pathway can drive the decision regarding the treatment of the most appropriate ear. However, in view of our small sample, further research is needed to confirm our results in this topic.

Importance of Binaural Hearing

An essential task for the central auditory pathways is to parse the auditory messages sent by the two cochleae into auditory objects, the segregation and localisation of which constitute an important means of separating target signals from noise and competing sources. When hearing losses are too asymmetric, the patients face a situation in which the monaural exploitation of sound messages significantly lessens their performance compared to what it should be in a binaural situation. Rehabilitation procedures must aim at restoring as many binaural advantages as possible. These advantages encompass binaural redundancy, head shadow effect and binaural release from masking, the principles and requirements of which make up the topic of this short review. Notwithstanding the complete understanding of their neuronal mechanisms, empirical data show that binaural advantages can be restored even in situations in which faultless symmetry is inaccessible.

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.

Exploring the clinical approach to the bimodal fitting of hearing aids and cochlear implants: results of an international survey

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that the fitting of a contralateral hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear of cochlear implant (CI) recipients is now well established as standard clinical practice. However, there is a lack of experience in HA fitting within the CI centres and the use of published bimodal fitting procedures is poor. The HA is often not refitted after CI switch-on and this may contribute to rejection. Including a bimodal fitting prescription and process in the CI fitting software would make applying a balancing procedure easier and may increase its implementation in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This survey was designed to investigate and understand the current approach to bimodal fitting of HAs and CIs across different countries and the recommendations made to recipients.

METHODS

Clinicians working with HAs and/or CIs were invited to participate in an international multicentre clinical survey, designed to obtain information on the various approaches towards bimodal hearing and CI and HA device fitting. Forty-one questions were presented to clinicians in experienced CI centres across a range of countries and answers were collected via an online survey.

RESULTS

In all, 65 responses were obtained from 12 different countries. All clinicians said they would advise a CI user to wear a contralateral HA if indicated. However, a significant number (45%) had either never fitted HAs before or had less than 1 year of experience. In general, there were no specific criteria for selecting candidates to fit with an HA. A strategy to balance the HA with the CI was not used as a standard practice for any of the adults and was used in only 12% of the children. Only half the respondents were aware of the bimodal literature. The majority of professionals (18/30) did not refit the HA after CI switch-on. However, if users complained of sound quality or loudness issues or had poor test results, a follow-up session was provided. The main benefit reported by recipients was improvement in overall sound quality.

Head shadow, squelch, and summation effects with an energetic or informational masker in bilateral and bimodal CI users

PURPOSE

The objective of the study was to investigate the influence of noise (energetic) and speech (energetic plus informational) maskers on the head shadow (HS), squelch (SQ), and binaural summation (SU) effect in bilateral and bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users.

METHOD

Speech recognition was measured in the presence of either a competing talker or modulated speech-shaped noise in 10 bimodal and 10 bilateral adult CI users. HS, SQ, and SU effects were calculated. The interfering signals were manipulated with respect to F0 to consider the influence of different speaker voices.

RESULTS

The effects HS, SQ, and SU differed depending on the type of masker. A detailed analysis of errors was used to dissociate energetic and informational masking effects. The analysis showed a release from energetic than from informational masking.

CONCLUSION

Noise interferers are not sufficient to reflect difficulties experienced with speech understanding in noise for bilateral and bimodal CI users.

Availability of binaural cues for bilateral implant recipients and bimodal listeners with and without preserved hearing in the implanted ear

The purpose of this study was to examine the availability of binaural cues for adult, bilateral cochlear implant (CI) patients, bimodal patients and hearing preservation patients using a multiple-baseline, observational study design. Speech recognition was assessed using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) test as well as the AzBio sentences [Spahr AJ, et al: Ear Hear 2012;33:112-117] presented in a multi-talker babble at a +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Test conditions included speech at 0° with noise presented at 0° (S0N0), 90° (S0N90) and 270° (S0N270). Estimates of summation, head shadow (HS), squelch and spatial release from masking (SRM) were calculated. Though nonwwe of the subject groups consistently showed access to binaural cues, the hearing preservation patients exhibited a significant correlation between summation and squelch whereas the bilateral and bimodal participants did not. That is to say, the two effects associated with binaural hearing - summation and squelch - were positively correlated only for the listeners with bilateral acoustic hearing. This finding provides evidence for the supposition that implant recipients with bilateral acoustic hearing have access to binaural cues, which should, in theory, provide greater benefit in noisy listening environments. It is likely, however, that the chosen test environment negatively affected the outcomes. Specifically, the spatially separated noise conditions directed noise toward the microphone (mic) port of the behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid and implant processor. Thus, it is possible that in more realistic listening environments for which the diffuse noise is not directed toward the processor/hearing aid mic, hearing preservation patients have binaural cues for improved speech understanding.