Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant.

The purpose of this investigation was to document performance of participants wearing a cochlear implant and hearing aid in opposite ears on speech-perception and localization tests. Twelve individuals who wore a cochlear implant and a hearing aid on contralateral ears were tested on their abilities to understand words in quiet and sentences in noise, and to localize everyday sounds. All speech stimuli were presented from the front, with the noise stimuli presented from the front, the right, or the left at a 90 degrees angle. Binaural summation in quiet and in noise, binaural squelch effects, and localization were studied to determine bilateral advantages. The magnitude of the monaural head shadow effect (the difference in unilateral performance when noise was facing the unilateral device vs. when the noise was opposite the unilateral device) also was studied. The test setup for localization was composed of an 8-speaker array spanning an arc of approximately 108 degrees in front of each participant. Group results yielded a statistically significant combined benefit of wearing a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant on opposite ears in noise conditions. Those participants who received a binaural advantage in 1 condition did not necessarily show a binaural advantage in another. Only 2 participants out of 12 were able to localize when wearing 2 devices. Further efforts are required to improve the integration of information from combined use of cochlear implant and hearing aid devices for enhancement of speech perception in noise and localization.     

Comparison of speech perception between monaural and binaural hearing in cochlear implant patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the advantages of binaural hearing for cochlear implant (CI) users using a hearing aid (HA) for the contralateral ear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The subjects comprised 3 males and 3 females (age range 48-84 years). All of them had been using a CI and HA for > 6 months. Their speech perception was examined in quiet using monosyllables and Japanese Hearing in Noise Test (J-HINT) sentences. Speech perception in noise was examined using J-HINT sentences. Late cortical waves were measured while subjects listened to 1 kHz frequent and 2 kHz target tone stimuli. The latency of the event-related potential (P300) wave was compared for monaural and binaural hearing conditions. RESULTS: Three subjects showed significantly better results for binaural than monaural (CI alone) hearing for monosyllables and HINT sentences (p < 0.05; paired t-test). Subjects with better speech perception had been using an HA for longer than those with poor performance (18.3 vs 4.0 years). The overall average score was better for binaural than monaural hearing in the speech perception test under quiet and noisy conditions. Comparison of the latency of the P300 wave under monaural and binaural hearing conditions showed a significantly shorter latency for the latter (p = 0.02; paired t-test). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of an HA alone showed marginal benefit for CI users, binaural hearing (CI+HA) resulted in a significant improvement in speech perception under various circumstances.     

Bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implants in children: Speech recognition,sound localization,and parental reports

Abstract

Objective: To compare bilateral and unilateral speech recognition in quiet and in multi-source noise, and horizontal sound localization of low and high frequency sounds in children with bilateral cochlear implants. Design: Bilateral performance was compared to performance of the implanted side with the best monaural speech recognition in quiet result. Parental reports were collected in a questionnaire. Results from the CI children were compared to binaural and monaural performance of normal-hearing peers. Study sample: Sixty-four children aged 5.1–11.9 years who were daily users of bilateral cochlear implants. Thirty normal-hearing children aged 4.8–9.0 years were recruited as controls. Results and Conclusions: Group data showed a statistically significant bilateral speech recognition and sound localization benefit, both behaviorally and in parental reports. The bilateral speech recognition benefit was smaller in quiet than in noise. The majority of subjects localized high and low frequency sounds significantly better than chance using bilateral implants, while localization accuracy was close to chance using unilateral implants. Binaural normal-hearing performance was better than bilateral performance in implanted children across tests, while bilaterally implanted children showed better localization than normal-hearing children under acute monaural conditions.     

Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation for hearing-impaired adult subjects using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant in a multicenter study, and to compare and quantify performance on speech perception measures in quiet and in noise and localization ability for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant use. DESIGN:: Repeated single subject measures were carried out for each subject, with each subject serving as their own control. Assessment of unilateral and bilateral listening conditions for performance on tests of speech comprehension and sound localization were performed. Speech comprehension measures were performed in quiet at 0 degree azimuth and in the presence of background noise simultaneously presented from the same speaker and spatially separated by 90 degrees, at S+45 degrees N45 degrees and at S-45 degrees N+45 degrees . Test materials included Freiburger monosyllabic words, Oldenburger sentences, and the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentences. Tests of localization were performed in the horizontal plane with 12 speaker locations 30 degrees apart using a shortened sentence stimulus from the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentences at two possible presentation levels of 55 and 70 dB sound pressure level for assessment of directionality. The binaural advantage provided by bilateral stimulation was calculated with respect to each ear separately, classified as either the better or poorer performing ear for each speech material in quiet and in noise test conditions. For localization of sound, the binaural advantage was compared with left and right ears separately. Paired comparisons for performance data in all conditions were carried out by considering measurements for each subject in different conditions as paired observations and applying the Student's t test to determine the statistical difference between the data sets. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers with a cochlear implant program. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven profoundly hearing-impaired adults were enrolled in the study, 22 simultaneously and 15 sequentially bilaterally implanted. All patients received the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant and used the Nucleus SPrint or ESPrit 3G speech processor, with the vast majority using the ACE speech coding strategy. RESULTS: For spatially separated speech in noise conditions, an interaural performance advantage for the ear closest to the speech source (i.e., with a superior signal to noise ratio) compared with that for the ear closest to the noise source (i.e., with an inferior signal to noise ratio) is consistently demonstrated regardless of whether it is the better or poorer performing ear closest to the speech signal. This is referred to as a significant binaural head-shadow benefit, resulting in a mean improvement between -10 dB and -11.4 dB in the critical signal to noise ratio required for 50% speech comprehension for the Olden-burger sentences and a mean improvement in the maximum score of 42% to 55% for the ear closest to the speech signal over the ear farthest away for the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentences. Bilateral stimulation is always observed to provide a performance advantage over the unilateral listening condition for either ear when ipsilateral to the noise source. In addition, as demonstrated by approximately half the subjects tested in noise with the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentences, a performance advantage of bilateral stimulation may be observed over the better ear alone when positioned ipsilateral to the speech signal, which is referred to as a binaural squelch effect. On average, for the group, this resulted in a statistically significant improvement in speech comprehension scores of 8% in the bilateral listening condition compared with the scores for the better ear alone. Through assessment of comprehension of coincidental speech in noise and speech in quiet, a significant benefit of binaural redundancy was noted for the group for Oldenburger sentence scores in noise and in quiet compared with unilateral scores for either ear and for the Freiburger monosyllabic words in quiet in comparison with the better ear alone scores. Binaural stimulation also led to a significant improvement in localization ability over either monaural condition, with the root mean square degrees of error reduced by 38 degrees compared with that observed for unilateral stimulation. CONCLUSION: Similar to what has been observed for bilateral acoustic stimulation in the past, bilateral electrical stimulation provides the foundation for the potential advantages of the head-shadow effect, providing a binaural head-shadow benefit and binaural auditory processing such as binaural redundancy and binaural squelch effects, all of which combine to lead to improved speech comprehension over unilateral listening conditions. The combination of improved speech comprehension and improved localization ability made available through bilateral electrical stimulation provides the necessary foundation to further assist the hearing-impaired listener to better cope with communication in the everyday listening situation both in noise and in quiet.     

Assessing binaural/bimodal advantages using auditory event-related potentials in subjects with cochlear implants

Objective

To assess the advantage of binaural and bimodal hearing for subjects with cochlear implant (CI) using auditory event-related potentials as well as speech perception tests.

Subjects and methods

The subjects comprised four binaural CI users (CI/CI group) and eleven bimodal CI users, who wore a hearing aid (HA) contralaterally (CI/HA group). All subjects had used binaural or bimodal fitting for over 6 months. Their speech perception was examined in a quiet environment using monosyllabic words. Late cortical waves were measured while subjects were engaged in an oddball task of 1 kHz frequent and 2 kHz rare tone stimuli. The latencies of event-related potential (N1, N2, P3) were compared for monaural, binaural, and bimodal hearing conditions.

Results

Significantly (p < 0.01, paired t-test) better speech perception for monosyllabic words was found for both binaural and bimodal hearing than monaural hearing. The latency of N1 did not significantly change for either binaural or bimodal hearing. On the other hand, the latency of N2 was significantly (p < 0.01, paired t-test) shorter for binaural and bimodal hearing than for monaural hearing. The latency of P3 was shorter for binaural and bimodal hearing than monaural hearing in all subjects, and the difference was statistically significant in both CI/CI and CI/HA groups (p < 0.01, paired t-test).

Conclusions

Better speech perception was obtained for binaural and bimodal hearing than for monaural hearing in CI subjects. The results obtained in the comparison of P3 latency agreed with that of speech perception. Thus, using bilateral hearing devices is recommended for CI subjects. We also found that event-related potentials were useful as an objective tool to assess the advantage of binaural and bimodal hearing for CI subjects.     

Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing.

PURPOSE: The authors assessed whether (a) a full-insertion cochlear implant would provide a higher level of speech understanding than bilateral low-frequency acoustic hearing, (b) contralateral acoustic hearing would add to the speech understanding provided by the implant, and (c) the level of performance achieved with electric stimulation plus contralateral acoustic hearing would be similar to performance reported in the literature for patients with a partial insertion cochlear implant. METHOD: Monosyllabic word recognition as well as sentence recognition in quiet and at +10 and +5 dB was assessed. Before implantation, scores were obtained in monaural and binaural conditions. Following implantation, scores were obtained in electric-only and electric-plus-contralateral acoustic conditions. RESULTS: Postoperatively, all individuals achieved higher scores in the electric-only test conditions than they did in the best pre-implant test conditions. All individuals benefited from the addition of low-frequency information to the electric hearing. CONCLUSION: A full-insertion cochlear implant provides better speech understanding than bilateral, low-frequency residual hearing. The combination of an implant and contralateral acoustic hearing yields comparable performance to that of patients with a partially inserted implant and bilateral, low-frequency acoustic hearing. These data suggest that a full-insertion cochlear implant is a viable treatment option for patients with low-frequency residual hearing.     

A meta-analytic comparison of binaural benefits between bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation

A meta-analytic approach was used to examine sixteen peer-reviewed publications related to speech-recognition performance in noise at fixed signal-to-noise ratios for participants who use bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) or bimodal stimulation. Two hundred eighty-seven analyses were conducted to compare the underlying contributions of binaural summation, binaural squelch, and the head-shadow effect compared to monaural conditions (CI or hearing aid). The analyses revealed an overall significant effect for binaural summation, binaural squelch, and head shadow for the bilateral and bimodal listeners relative to monaural conditions. In addition, all within-condition (bilateral or bimodal) comparisons were significant for the three binaural effects, with the exception of the bimodal condition compared to a monaural CI. No significant differences were detected between the bilateral and bimodal listeners for any of the binaural phenomena. Clinical implications and recommendations are discussed as they relate to empirical findings.     

Comparison of speech perception between monaural and binaural hearing in cochlear implant patients

Objective To assess the advantages of binaural hearing for cochlear implant (CI) users using a hearing aid (HA) for the contralateral ear.

Material and Methods The subjects comprised 3 males and 3 females (age range 48–84 years). All of them had been using a CI and HA for >6 months. Their speech perception was examined in quiet using monosyllables and Japanese Hearing in Noise Test (J-HINT) sentences. Speech perception in noise was examined using J-HINT sentences. Late cortical waves were measured while subjects listened to 1 kHz frequent and 2 kHz target tone stimuli. The latency of the event-related potential (P300) wave was compared for monaural and binaural hearing conditions.

Results Three subjects showed significantly better results for binaural than monaural (CI alone) hearing for monosyllables and HINT sentences (p<0.05; paired t-test). Subjects with better speech perception had been using an HA for longer than those with poor performance (18.3 vs 4.0 years). The overall average score was better for binaural than monaural hearing in the speech perception test under quiet and noisy conditions. Comparison of the latency of the P300 wave under monaural and binaural hearing conditions showed a significantly shorter latency for the latter (p=0.02; paired t-test).

Conclusion Although the use of an HA alone showed marginal benefit for CI users, binaural hearing (CI + HA) resulted in a significant improvement in speech perception under various circumstances.     

Sound-direction identification with bilateral cochlear implants

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of sound-direction identification in the horizontal plane by bilateral cochlear implant users when localization was measured with pink noise and with speech stimuli. DESIGN: Eight adults who were bilateral users of Nucleus 24 Contour devices participated in the study. All had received implants in both ears in a single surgery. Sound-direction identification was measured in a large classroom by using a nine-loudspeaker array. Localization was tested in three listening conditions (bilateral cochlear implants, left cochlear implant, and right cochlear implant), using two different stimuli (a speech stimulus and pink noise bursts) in a repeated-measures design. RESULTS: Sound-direction identification accuracy was significantly better when using two implants than when using a single implant. The mean root-mean-square error was 29 degrees for the bilateral condition, 54 degrees for the left cochlear implant, and 46.5 degrees for the right cochlear implant condition. Unilateral accuracy was similar for right cochlear implant and left cochlear implant performance. Sound-direction identification performance was similar for speech and pink noise stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained in this study add to the growing body of evidence that sound-direction identification with bilateral cochlear implants is better than with a single implant. The similarity in localization performance obtained with the speech and pink noise supports the use of either stimulus for measuring sound-direction identification.     

Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to document speech perception and localization abilities in patients who use a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear. DESIGN: We surveyed a group of 111 cochlear implant patients and asked them whether they used a hearing aid on their unimplanted ear. The first three patients who were available were tested on word and sentence recognition and localization tasks. Speech stimuli were presented from the front in quiet and in noise. In the latter conditions, noise was either from the front, the right, or the left. Localization was tested with noise bursts presented at 45 degrees from the right or left. In addition we asked the patients about their abilities to integrate the information from both devices. RESULTS: Speech perception tests in quiet showed a binaural advantage for only one of the three patients for words and none for sentences. With speech and noise both in front of the patient, two patients performed better with both devices than with either device alone. With speech in front and noise on the hearing aid side, no binaural advantage was seen, but with noise on the cochlear implant side, one patient showed a binaural advantage. Localization ability improved with both devices for two patients. The third patient had above-chance localization ability with his implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: A cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear can provide binaural advantages. The patient who did not show a clear binaural advantage had the poorest hearing aid alone performance. The absolute and relative levels of performance at each ear are likely to influence the potential for binaural integration.     

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

Abstract Conclusion: The use of a hearing aid (HA) in combination with a cochlear implant (CI) significantly improved performance for speech perception in quiet, in noise, and for localization compared with monaural conditions. No significant differences in functional performance were observed following optimization of HA fitting. Objectives: To evaluate the binaural benefits derived from using a contralateral HA in conjunction with a CI in subjects with significant functional hearing in the nonimplanted ear and the effects of HA fitting optimization. Methods: Fifteen adult CI users, intra-subject controls, were enrolled in a prospective repeated-measure multicenter study. Evaluation of performance for speech understanding, localization, and subjective impressions was conducted before and following HA fitting optimization for CI alone, HA alone, and CI + HA. Results: For speech testing in quiet, bimodal scores were significantly better than for HA alone and CI alone conditions (p < 0.01). For speech and noise (S0N0) at 0° azimuth the scores were significantly better in the bimodal condition than for CI alone (p = 0.01), indicating binaural summation. When noise was presented to the HA side (S0NHA) bimodal scores were significantly better than for CI alone (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively), suggesting a significant binaural squelch effect. Sound localization ability was significantly improved in the bimodal condition compared with the CI alone condition (p = 0.002).     

双侧人工耳蜗植入者在噪声环境下的言语辨别能力

目的 探讨双侧人工耳蜗植入患者的言语辨别能力。方法 用2例双侧人工耳蜗植入者比较双侧与单侧人工耳蜗在不同信噪比下对广东话声调的辨别能力。结果 在 15, 10和 5的信噪比下,双侧人工耳蜗的平均能力为96%,92%和88%,而左耳及右耳单侧人工耳蜗的平均成绩为86%,83和74%。在0,-5,-10及-15的信噪比下,单侧人工耳蜗的平均能力近于0%,而双侧人工耳蜗的平均成绩为80%,72%,68%和54%。结论 在不同信噪比下,双侧人工耳蜗植入更有助于提高对广东话声调的辨别能力。进一步证明了双侧人工耳蜗植入患者运用双耳听力的优势。     

Binaural cochlear implants.

With the success of monaural cochlear implantation, patients frequently ask about having a second implant. We have performed binaural cochlear implants in 12 adult patients. Desire not to disrupt a functioning implant was the primary consideration in implanting the contralateral ear. Seven patients received a second 3M/House single-channel implant to upgrade to a magnetic external receiver. Four patients with a 3M/House device in one ear elected to place a Nucleus multichannel implant in the opposite ear. One patient with a poorly functioning Nucleus device elected to have a second Nucleus device. Four patients with a Nucleus and a 3M/House implant, one with binaural 3M/House implants, and one with binaural Nucleus implants were tested for auditory discrimination in order to quantify monaural versus binaural differences. The functional benefit of the second implant was mixed, but all patients showed some degree of objective improvement on one or more tests. Five of the six are regular users of both devices; the patient with binaural Nucleus implants wears only one. Despite the differing processing schemes, patients with a Nucleus device in one ear and a 3M/House device in the other ear are able to combine the two signals to advantage. We feel that cochlear implantation in the contralateral ear is an acceptable option in selected patients desiring an upgraded implant without placing a functioning implant at risk.     

Two Ears Are Not Always Better than One: Mandatory Vowel Fusion Across Spectrally Mismatched Ears in Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Hearing loss and auditory prostheses can alter auditory processing by inducing large pitch mismatches and broad pitch fusion between the two ears. Similar to integration of incongruent inputs in other sensory modalities, the mismatched, fused pitches are often averaged across ears for simple stimuli. Here, we measured parallel effects on complex stimulus integration using a new technique based on vowel classification in five bilateral hearing aid users and eight bimodal cochlear implant users. Continua between five pairs of synthetic vowels were created by varying the first formant spectral peak while keeping the second formant constant. Comparison of binaural and monaural vowel classification functions for each vowel pair continuum enabled visualization of the following frequency-dependent integration trends: (1) similar monaural and binaural functions, (2) ear dominance, (3) binaural averaging, and (4) binaural interference. Hearing aid users showed all trends, while bimodal cochlear implant users showed mostly ear dominance or interference. Interaural pitch mismatches, frequency ranges of binaural pitch fusion, and the relative weightings of pitch averaging across ears were also measured using tone and/or electrode stimulation. The presence of both large interaural pitch mismatches and broad pitch fusion was not sufficient to predict vowel integration trends such as binaural averaging or interference. The way that pitch averaging was weighted between ears also appears to be important for determining binaural vowel integration trends. Abnormally broad spectral fusion and the associated phoneme fusion across mismatched ears may underlie binaural speech perception interference observed in hearing aid and cochlear implant users.     

Brain voice processing with bilateral cochlear implants: a positron emission tomography study

Most cochlear implantations are unilateral. To explore the benefits of a binaural cochlear implant, we used water-labelled oxygen-15 positron emission tomography. Relative cerebral blood flow was measured in a binaural implant group (n = 11), while the subjects were passively listening to human voice sounds, environmental sounds non-voice or silence. Binaural auditory stimulation in the cochlear implant group bilaterally activated the temporal voice areas, whereas monaural cochlear implant stimulation only activated the left temporal voice area. Direct comparison of the binaural and the monaural cochlear implant stimulation condition revealed an additional right temporal activation during voice processing in the binaural condition and the activation of a right fronto-parietal cortical network during sound processing that has been implicated in attention. These findings provide evidence that a bilateral cochlear implant stimulation enhanced the spectral cues associated with sound perception and improved brain processing of voice stimuli in the right temporal region when compared to a monaural cochlear implant stimulation. Moreover, the recruitment of sensory attention resources in a right fronto-parietal network allowed patients with bilateral cochlear implant stimulation to enhance their sound discrimination, whereas the same patients with only one cochlear implant stimulation had more auditory perception difficulties.     

双侧人工耳蜗植入者在噪声环境下的言语辨别能力

目的探讨双侧人工耳蜗植入患者的言语辨别能力.方法用2例双侧人工耳蜗植入者比较双侧与单侧人工耳蜗在不同信噪比下对广东话声调的辨别能力.结果在+15,+10和+5的信噪比下, 双侧人工耳蜗的平均能力为96%, 92%和88%, 而左耳及右耳单侧人工耳蜗的平均成绩为86%,83%和74%. 在0,-5,-10及-15的信噪比下,单侧人工耳蜗的平均能力近于0%,而双侧人工耳蜗的平均成绩为80%,72%,68%和54%.结论在不同信噪比下,双侧人工耳蜗植入更有助于提高对广东话声调的辨别能力. 进一步证明了双侧人工耳蜗植入患者运用双耳听力的优势.     

Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of "simultaneous" bilateral cochlear implantation (both implants placed during a single surgical procedure) by comparing bilateral and unilateral implant use in a large number of adult subjects tested at multiple sites. DESIGN: Prospective study of 37 adults with postlinguistic onset of bilateral, severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Performance with the bilateral cochlear implants, using the same speech processor type and speech processing strategy, was compared with performance using the left implant alone and the right implant alone. Speech understanding in quiet (CNCs and HINT sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN Test) were evaluated at several postactivation time intervals, with speech presented at 0 degrees azimuth, and noise at either 0 degrees , 90 degrees right, or 90 degrees left in the horizontal plane. APHAB questionnaire data were collected after each subject underwent a 3-wk "bilateral deprivation" period, during which they wore only the speech processor that produced the best score during unilateral testing, and also after a period of listening again with the bilateral implants. RESULTS: By 6-mo postactivation, a significant advantage for speech understanding in quiet was found in the bilateral listening mode compared with either unilateral listening modes. For speech understanding in noise, the largest and most robust bilateral benefit was when the subject was able to take advantage of the head shadow effect; i.e., results were significantly better for bilateral listening compared with the unilateral condition when the ear opposite to the side of the noise was added to create the bilateral condition. This bilateral benefit was seen on at least one of the two unilateral ear comparisons for nearly all (32/34) subjects. Bilateral benefit was also found for a few subjects in spatial configurations that evaluated binaural redundancy and binaural squelch effects. A subgroup of subjects who had asymmetrical unilateral implant performances were, overall, similar in performance to subjects with symmetrical hearing. The questionnaire data indicated that bilateral users perceive their own performance to be better with bilateral cochlear implants than when using a single device. CONCLUSIONS: Findings with a large patient group are in agreement with previous reports on smaller groups, showing that, overall, bilateral implantation offers the majority of patients advantages when listening in simulated adverse conditions.     

Bilateral cochlear implants in children: localization acuity measured with minimum audible angle

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sound localization acuity in a group of children who received bilateral (BI) cochlear implants in sequential procedures and to determine the extent to which BI auditory experience affects sound localization acuity. In addition, to investigate the extent to which a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear can also provide benefits on this task. DESIGN: Two groups of children participated, 13 with BI cochlear implants (cochlear implant + cochlear implant), ranging in age from 3 to 16 yrs, and six with a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (cochlear implant + hearing aid), ages 4 to 14 yrs. Testing was conducted in large sound-treated booths with loudspeakers positioned on a horizontal arc with a radius of 1.5 m. Stimuli were spondaic words recorded with a male voice. Stimulus levels typically averaged 60 dB SPL and were randomly roved between 56 and 64 dB SPL (+/-4 dB rove); in a few instances, levels were held fixed (60 dB SPL). Testing was conducted by using a "listening game" platform via computerized interactive software, and the ability of each child to discriminate sounds presented to the right or left was measured for loudspeakers subtending various angular separations. Minimum audible angle thresholds were measured in the BI (cochlear implant + cochlear implant or cochlear implant + hearing aid) listening mode and under monaural conditions. RESULTS: Approximately 70% (9/13) of children in the cochlear implant + cochlear implant group discriminated left/right for source separations of 相似文献