Frequency-dependent loudness balancing in bimodal cochlear implant users

Mens L, F.M. Snik A, van Opstal AJ, van Wanrooij MM. Hearing Asymmetry Biases Spatial Hearing in Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Users Despite Bilateral Low-Frequency Hearing Preservation

Many cochlear implant users with binaural residual (acoustic) hearing benefit from combining electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) in the implanted ear with acoustic amplification in the other. These bimodal EAS listeners can potentially use low-frequency binaural cues to localize sounds. However, their hearing is generally asymmetric for mid- and high-frequency sounds, perturbing or even abolishing binaural cues. Here, we investigated the effect of a frequency-dependent binaural asymmetry in hearing thresholds on sound localization by seven bimodal EAS listeners. Frequency dependence was probed by presenting sounds with power in low-, mid-, high-, or mid-to-high-frequency bands. Frequency-dependent hearing asymmetry was present in the bimodal EAS listening condition (when using both devices) but was also induced by independently switching devices on or off. Using both devices, hearing was near symmetric for low frequencies, asymmetric for mid frequencies with better hearing thresholds in the implanted ear, and monaural for high frequencies with no hearing in the non-implanted ear. Results show that sound-localization performance was poor in general. Typically, localization was strongly biased toward the better hearing ear. We observed that hearing asymmetry was a good predictor for these biases. Notably, even when hearing was symmetric a preferential bias toward the ear using the hearing aid was revealed. We discuss how frequency dependence of any hearing asymmetry may lead to binaural cues that are spatially inconsistent as the spectrum of a sound changes. We speculate that this inconsistency may prevent accurate sound-localization even after long-term exposure to the hearing asymmetry.

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

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

Reaction Time Sensitivity to Spectrotemporal Modulations of Sound

We tested whether sensitivity to acoustic spectrotemporal modulations can be observed from reaction times for normal-hearing and impaired-hearing conditions. In a manual reaction-time task, normal-hearing listeners had to detect the onset of a ripple (with density between 0–8 cycles/octave and a fixed modulation depth of 50%), that moved up or down the log-frequency axis at constant velocity (between 0–64 Hz), in an otherwise-unmodulated broadband white-noise. Spectral and temporal modulations elicited band-pass filtered sensitivity characteristics, with fastest detection rates around 1 cycle/oct and 32 Hz for normal-hearing conditions. These results closely resemble data from other studies that typically used the modulation-depth threshold as a sensitivity criterion. To simulate hearing-impairment, stimuli were processed with a 6-channel cochlear-implant vocoder, and a hearing-aid simulation that introduced separate spectral smearing and low-pass filtering. Reaction times were always much slower compared to normal hearing, especially for the highest spectral densities. Binaural performance was predicted well by the benchmark race model of binaural independence, which models statistical facilitation of independent monaural channels. For the impaired-hearing simulations this implied a “best-of-both-worlds” principle in which the listeners relied on the hearing-aid ear to detect spectral modulations, and on the cochlear-implant ear for temporal-modulation detection. Although singular-value decomposition indicated that the joint spectrotemporal sensitivity matrix could be largely reconstructed from independent temporal and spectral sensitivity functions, in line with time-spectrum separability, a substantial inseparable spectral-temporal interaction was present in all hearing conditions. These results suggest that the reaction-time task yields a valid and effective objective measure of acoustic spectrotemporal-modulation sensitivity.

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

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

Speech Intelligibility and Spatial Release From Masking Improvements Using Spatial Noise Reduction Algorithms in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

This study investigated the speech intelligibility benefit of using two different spatial noise reduction algorithms in cochlear implant (CI) users who use a hearing aid (HA) on the contralateral side (bimodal CI users). The study controlled for head movements by using head-related impulse responses to simulate a realistic cafeteria scenario and controlled for HA and CI manufacturer differences by using the master hearing aid platform (MHA) to apply both hearing loss compensation and the noise reduction algorithms (beamformers). Ten bimodal CI users with moderate to severe hearing loss contralateral to their CI participated in the study, and data from nine listeners were included in the data analysis. The beamformers evaluated were the adaptive differential microphones (ADM) implemented independently on each side of the listener and the (binaurally implemented) minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR). For frontal speech and stationary noise from either left or right, an improvement (reduction) of the speech reception threshold of 5.4 dB and 5.5 dB was observed using the ADM, and 6.4 dB and 7.0 dB using the MVDR, respectively. As expected, no improvement was observed for either algorithm for colocated speech and noise. In a 20-talker babble noise scenario, the benefit observed was 3.5 dB for ADM and 7.5 dB for MVDR. The binaural MVDR algorithm outperformed the bilaterally applied monaural ADM. These results encourage the use of beamformer algorithms such as the ADM and MVDR by bimodal CI users in everyday life scenarios.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Objective Binaural Loudness Balancing Based on 40-Hz Auditory Steady-State Responses. Part II: Asymmetric and Bimodal Hearing

In Part I, we investigated 40-Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) amplitudes for the use of objective loudness balancing across the ears for normal-hearing participants and found median across-ear ratios in ASSR amplitudes close to 1. In this part, we further investigated whether the ASSR can be used to estimate binaural loudness balance for listeners with asymmetric hearing, for whom binaural loudness balancing is of particular interest. We tested participants with asymmetric hearing and participants with bimodal hearing, who hear with electrical stimulation through a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and with acoustical stimulation in the other ear. Behavioral loudness balancing was performed at different percentages of the dynamic range. Acoustical carrier frequencies were 500, 1000, or 2000 Hz, and CI channels were stimulated in apical or middle regions in the cochlea. For both groups, the ASSR amplitudes at balanced loudness levels were similar for the two ears, with median ratios between left and right ear stimulation close to 1. However, individual variability was observed. For participants with asymmetric hearing loss, the difference between the behavioral balanced levels and the ASSR-predicted balanced levels was smaller than 10 dB in 50% and 56% of cases, for 500 Hz and 2000 Hz, respectively. For bimodal listeners, these percentages were 89% and 60%. Apical CI channels yielded significantly better results (median difference near 0 dB) than middle CI channels, which had a median difference of −7.25 dB.

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.

Effect of extreme adaptive frequency compression in bimodal listeners on sound localization and speech perception

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to improve access to high-frequency interaural level differences (ILD), by applying extreme frequency compression (FC) in the hearing aid (HA) of 13 bimodal listeners, using a cochlear implant (CI) and conventional HA in opposite ears.

DESIGN

An experimental signal-adaptive frequency-lowering algorithm was tested, compressing frequencies above 160 Hz into the individual audible range of residual hearing, but only for consonants (adaptive FC), thus protecting vowel formants, with the aim to preserve speech perception. In a cross-over design with at least 5 weeks of acclimatization between sessions, bimodal performance with and without adaptive FC was compared for horizontal sound localization, speech understanding in quiet and in noise, and vowel, consonant and voice-pitch perception.

RESULTS

On average, adaptive FC did not significantly affect any of the test results. Yet, two subjects who were fitted with a relatively weak frequency compression ratio, showed improved horizontal sound localization. After the study, four subjects preferred adaptive FC, four preferred standard frequency mapping, and four had no preference. Noteworthy, the subjects preferring adaptive FC were those with best performance on all tasks, both with and without adaptive FC.

CONCLUSION

On a group level, extreme adaptive FC did not change sound localization and speech understanding in bimodal listeners. Possible reasons are too strong compression ratios, insufficient residual hearing or that the adaptive switching, although preserving vowel perception, may have been ineffective to produce consistent ILD cues. Individual results suggested that two subjects were able to integrate the frequency-compressed HA input with that of the CI, and benefitted from enhanced binaural cues for horizontal sound localization.