Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials in which children received bilateral cochlear implants in sequential operations were conducted to analyze the extent to which bilateral implantation offers benefits on a number of measures. The present investigation was particularly focused on measuring the effects of age at implantation and experience after activation of the second implant on speech perception performance. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty children aged 3 to 13 years were recipients of 2 cochlear implants, received in sequential operations, a minimum of 6 months apart. All children received their first implant before 5 years of age and had acquired speech perception capabilities with the first device. They were divided into 3 age groups on the basis of age at time of second ear implantation: Group I, 3 to 5 years; Group II, 5.1 to 8 years; and Group III, 8.1 to 13 years. Speech perception measures in quiet included the Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test (MLNT) for Group I, the Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT) for Groups II and III, and the Hearing In Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) sentences in quiet for Group III. Speech perception in noise was assessed using the Children's Realistic Intelligibility and Speech Perception (CRISP) test. Testing was performed preoperatively and again postactivation of the second implant at 3, 6, and 12 months (CRISP at 3 and 9 mo) in both the unilateral and bilateral conditions in a repeated-measures study design. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze statistical significance among device configurations and performance over time. SETTING: US Multicenter. RESULTS: Results for speech perception in quiet show that children implanted sequentially acquire open-set speech perception in the second ear relatively quickly (within 6 mo). However, children younger than 8 years do so more rapidly and to a higher level of speech perception ability at 12 months than older children (mean second ear MLNT/LNT scores at 12 months: Group I, 83.9%; range, 71-96%; Group II, 59.5%; range, 40-88%; Group III, 32%; range, 12-56%). The second-ear mean HINT-C score for Group III children remained far less than that of the first ear even after 12 months of device use (44 versus 89%; t, 6.48; p<0.001; critical value, 0.025). Speech intelligibility for spondees in noise was significantly better under bilateral conditions than with either ear alone when all children were analyzed as a single group and for Group III children. At the 9-month test interval, performance in the bilateral configuration was significantly better for all noise conditions (13.2% better for noise at first cochlear implant, 6.8% better for the noise front and noise at second cochlear implant conditions, t=2.32, p=0.024, critical level=0.05 for noise front; t=3.75, p<0.0001, critical level=0.05 for noise at first implant; t=2.73, p = 0.008, critical level=0.05 for noise at second implant side). The bilateral benefit in noise increased with time from 3 to 9 months after activation of the second implant. This bilateral advantage is greatest when noise is directed toward the first implanted ear, indicating that the head shadow effect is the most effective binaural mechanism. The bilateral condition produced small improvements in speech perception in quiet and for individual Group I and Group II patient results in noise that, in view of the relatively small number of subjects tested, do not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children of diverse ages has the potential to improve speech perception abilities in the second implanted ear and to provide access to the use of binaural mechanisms such as the head shadow effect. The improvement unfolds over time and continues to grow during the 6 to 12 months after activation of the second implant. Younger children in this study achieved higher open-set speech perception scores in the second ear, but older children still demonstrate bilateral benefit in noise. Determining the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness that results from such potential capabilities in bilaterally implanted children requires additional study with larger groups of subjects and more prolonged monitoring.     

Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in a patient with bilateral Ménière's disease

This case study describes a 45-yr-old female with bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss due to Ménière's disease. She received her first cochlear implant in the right ear in 2008 and the second cochlear implant in the left ear in 2010. The case study examines the enhancement to speech recognition, particularly in noise, provided by bilateral cochlear implants. Speech recognition tests were administered prior to obtaining the second implant and at a number of test intervals following activation of the second device. Speech recognition in quiet and noise as well as localization abilities were assessed in several conditions to determine bilateral benefit and performance differences between ears. The results of the speech recognition testing indicated a substantial improvement in the patient's ability to understand speech in noise and her ability to localize sound when using bilateral cochlear implants compared to using a unilateral implant or an implant and a hearing aid. In addition, the patient reported considerable improvement in her ability to communicate in daily life when using bilateral implants versus a unilateral implant. This case suggests that cochlear implantation is a viable option for patients who have lost their hearing to Ménière's disease even when a number of medical treatments and surgical interventions have been performed to control vertigo. In the case presented, bilateral cochlear implantation was necessary for this patient to communicate successfully at home and at work.     

Aplicación de la tecnología de enrutamiento inalámbrico contralateral de la señal (CROS) en usuarios de implante coclear unilateral

IntroductionSingle cochlear implantation usually provides substantial speech intelligibility benefits but bilaterally deaf, unilaterally implanted subjects will continue to experience limitations due to the head shadow effect, like single-sided deaf individuals. In the treatment of individuals with single-sided deafness one option is contralateral routing of signal (CROS) devices, which constitute a non-surgical intervention of the second ear in unilaterally implanted individuals.MethodTwelve experienced adult cochlear implant users with Naída Q70 processor and the CROS device used in combination participated in the study. For the study 3 conditions were provided: cochlear implant only, omnidirectional microphone mode (CROS deactivated); cochlear implant plus CROS activated, omnidirectional microphone mode and cochlear implant plus CROS activated, UltraZoom mode. Speech reception thresholds were determined in quiet and noise. Subjective feedback regarding the practical usability of the CROS device and the perceived benefit were collected.ResultsThere was a 27.6% improvement in speech understanding in quiet and 32.5% improvement in noise when CROS device was activated. Using advanced directional microphones, a statistically significant benefit of 35% was obtained. The responses to the questionnaires revealed that the subjects perceived benefit in their everyday lives when using the CROS device with their cochlear implants.ConclusionThe investigated CROS device used by unilateral CI recipients in cases where bilateral implantation is not an option provides both subjective and objective speech recognition benefit when the signal is directed to the CROS device. Unfavourable conditions where speech is presented from the cochlear implant side and noise from the CROS side or diffusely were not included in this evaluation since the CROS device adds additional noise and performance is expected to decrease as has previously been shown.     

Speech recognition outcomes following bilateral cochlear implantation in adults aged over 50 years old

Abstract

Objective: To examine the speech recognition benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation over unilateral implantation in adults aged over 50 years old, and to identify potential predictors of successful bilateral implantation in this group. Design: Retrospective cohort study using data collected during standard clinical practice. Bilateral performance was compared to the unilateral performance with the first and second implanted ear and examined in relation to potential predictive variables. Study sample: Sixty-seven cochlear implant users who received a second implant after the age of 50 years old. Results: Participants obtained significantly greater speech recognition scores with the use of bilateral cochlear implants compared to the use of each individual implant. The score obtained with the first implanted ear was the most reliable predictor of the score obtained with the second and with bilateral implants. Conclusions: Older adults can obtain speech recognition benefits from sequential bilateral cochlear implantation.     

A longitudinal study of the bilateral benefit in children with bilateral cochlear implants

Objective: To study the development of the bilateral benefit in children using bilateral cochlear implants by measurements of speech recognition and sound localization. Design: Bilateral and unilateral speech recognition in quiet, in multi-source noise, and horizontal sound localization was measured at three occasions during a two-year period, without controlling for age or implant experience. Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses were performed. Results were compared to cross-sectional data from children with normal hearing. Study sample: Seventy-eight children aged 5.1–11.9 years, with a mean bilateral cochlear implant experience of 3.3 years and a mean age of 7.8 years, at inclusion in the study. Thirty children with normal hearing aged 4.8–9.0 years provided normative data. Results: For children with cochlear implants, bilateral and unilateral speech recognition in quiet was comparable whereas a bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise and sound localization was found at all three test occasions. Absolute performance was lower than in children with normal hearing. Early bilateral implantation facilitated sound localization. Conclusions: A bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise and sound localization continues to exist over time for children with bilateral cochlear implants, but no relative improvement is found after three years of bilateral cochlear implant experience.     

Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate speech understanding in quiet and noise in subjects bilaterally implanted with multi-channel cochlear implants. DESIGN: Nine adults bilaterally implanted with MED-EL implants were included in the study. The subjects were tested in three conditions: with both implants, with the right implant only, and with the left implant only. Speech tests included monosyllables in quiet and sentences in noise (10 dB signal to noise ratio). Speech was presented from the front, and noise was presented from either 90 degrees or 270 degrees azimuth. RESULTS: All subjects reported benefit from bilateral stimulation. Speech scores for all subjects were higher with bilateral than with unilateral stimulation. The average score across subjects for sentence understanding was 31.1 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants compared with the cochlear implant ipsilateral to the noise, and 10.7 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants compared with the cochlear implant contralateral to the noise. The average score for recognition of monosyllabic words was 18.7 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants than with one cochlear implant. All of these differences in average scores were significant at the 5% level. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral cochlear implantation provides a significant benefit in speech understanding in both quiet and noise.     

Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: development of the primary auditory abilities of bilateral stimulation

The advantages of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation were assessed in 29 children with a severe to profound hearing loss. The effect of age at second implantation and the effect of duration of bilateral implant use on the outcomes in speech perception and directional hearing were investigated. The children received their second cochlear implant at an age ranging from 2.8 to 8.5 years. Measurements were carried out preoperatively and postoperatively after 6, 12 and 24 months of bilateral implant use. A matched control group of 9 children with a unilateral implant were also measured over time and were compared with the study group after 12 and 24 months. Speech reception in both quiet and in noise and lateralization were measured. After 24 months, a minimum audible angle task was carried out. Bilateral advantages with regard to speech reception in quiet and in noise were already present after 6 months of bilateral implant use and improved thereafter. After 24 months, speech reception in noise had significantly improved with bilateral implants compared to that of children with a unilateral implant. The percentage of children that could accurately lateralize increased from 57% after 6 months to 83% after 24 months. With regard to the minimum audible angle task, loudspeakers were placed on average at ±42°. Age at second implantation did not have an influence on all outcomes. From the results it can be concluded that the advantages of bilateral hearing occur after sequential bilateral implantation and that age at second implantation does not influence the amount of bilateral advantage. Furthermore, it can be concluded that longer periods of bilateral implant use lead to greater bilateral advantages.     

Comparison of bilateral and unilateral cochlear implants in children with sequential surgery

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implants and the importance of the inter-implant interval.

Methods

Seventy-three prelingually deaf children received sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Speech recognition in quiet with the first, second and with both implants simultaneously was evaluated at the time of the second implantation and after 12 and 24 months.

Results

Mean bilateral speech recognition 12 and 24 months after the second implantation was significantly higher than that obtained with either the first or the second implant. The addition of a second implant was demonstrated to have a beneficial effect after both 12 and 24 months. Speech recognition with the second implant increased significantly during the first year. A small, non-significant improvement was observed during the second year. The inter-implant interval significantly influenced speech recognition with the second cochlear implant both at 12 and 24 months, and bilateral speech recognition at 12 months, but not at 24 months.

Conclusions

A small, but statistically significant improvement in speech recognition was found with bilateral cochlear implants compared with a unilateral implant. A major increase in speech recognition occurred with the second cochlear implant during the first year. A shorter time interval between the two implantations resulted in better speech recognition with the second implant. However, no definitive time-point was found for when the second implant could no longer add a positive effect.     

Bilateral cochlear implantation in children

AIMS: to determine the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation in a child on speech and language development. METHOD: This child got her first implant, a Nucleus 24-system, on the right side at the age of 2.5 years. The left side was implanted at the age of 4.4 years with a Nucleus 24Contour-system. On the right side she's now wearing an Esprit 24-speechprocessor (SPR). On the left side she has a Sprint-SPR. M. goes to a mainstream school and receives Speech and Language therapy in a Speech and Hearing Rehab Centre. The etiology of her deafness was hyperbilirubinemia. Auditory capacity and speech recognition tests were performed for both ears separately and together. RESULTS: Aided thresholds give a PTA of 28 dBA with the first implant, 22 dBA with the second implant and with both implants we get a PTA of 23 dBA. Results for speech identification and recognition demonstrated an increased performance when both implants are used together. Speech and language development was equivalent to the mean of age 4.5. At the time of testing M. was 4.8 years. At this time the speech and language development show no delays with normal hearing children. CONCLUSIONS: bilateral cochlear implantation in children may have additional value for their speech and language development. Also, implantation may be considered when auditory neuropathy is likely.     

Should a hearing aid in the contralateral ear be recommended for children with a unilateral cochlear implant?

OBJECTIVES: To predict bimodal benefit before cochlear implantation, we compared the performances of participants with bimodal fitting and with a cochlear implant alone on speech perception tests. METHODS: Twenty-two children with a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other (bimodal fitting) were included. Several aided and unaided average hearing thresholds and the aided word recognition score of the hearing aid ear were related to the bimodal benefit on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. Results with bimodal fitting were compared to results with the cochlear implant alone on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. RESULTS: No relationship was found between any of the hearing thresholds or the aided phoneme recognition score of the hearing aid ear and the bimodal benefit on the phoneme recognition tests. At the group level, the bimodal scores on the phoneme recognition tests in quiet and in noise were significantly better than the scores with the cochlear implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively available audiometric parameters are not reliable predictors of bimodal benefit in candidates for cochlear implantation. Children with unilateral implants benefit from bimodal fitting on speech tests. This improvement in performance warrants the recommendation of bimodal fitting even when bimodal benefit cannot be predicted.     

The influence of a sensitive period on central auditory development in children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants

We examined the longitudinal development of the cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) in 21 children who were fitted with unilateral cochlear implants and in two children who were fitted with bilateral cochlear implants either before age 3.5 years or after age 7 years. The age cut-offs (<3.5 years for early-implanted and >7 years for late-implanted) were based on the sensitive period for central auditory development described in [Ear Hear. 23 (6), 532.] Our results showed a fundamentally different pattern of development of CAEP morphology and P1 cortical response latency for early- and late-implanted children. Early-implanted children and one child who received bilateral implants by age 3.5 years showed rapid development in CAEP waveform morphology and P1 latency. Late-implanted children showed aberrant waveform morphology and significantly slower decreases in P1 latency postimplantation. In the case of a child who received his first implant by age 3.5 years and his second implant after age 7 years, CAEP responses elicited by the second implant were similar to late-implanted children. Our results are consistent with animal models of central auditory development after implantation and confirm the presence of a relatively brief sensitive period for central auditory development in young children.     

Effects of Delayed Second Cochlear Implant

Objective Since Helms' successful bilateral cochlear implantation with good results in 1996, there have been increasing number of reports on bilateral cochlear implantation. Most second device have been implantated within one year after the first. Considering effects of long time auditory deprivation, it is not clear whether a delayed second cochlear implant serves to add additional benefits and how it may interact with central nervous system plasticity. Methods Three cases who received delayed second cochlear implants at People's Hospital of Peking University from 2002 to 2005 were reviewed. The interval between the first and second implants was longer than 2 years in all three patients. Sound perception, and unilateral/bilateral speech discrimination in quiet and noise were evaluated. In addition, GAP detection test was conducted in one patient. Results In one case, having both implants on provided improved performance compared to using only one implant both in quiet and noise. Presumably due to visual interference from lip-reading or short interval between second implant and testing, one patient showed no improvement from using the second implant either in quiet or noise, while the last case demonstrated additional benefits from the second implant only in quiet. In all three patients, performance in recognizing the four tones in Mandarin was superior over word recognition. Conclusions Considerable plasticity in the cerebral auditory center is preserved, despite long acoustic deprivation in some children who have received unilateral cochlear implant. Delayed second implants can result in significant improvements in some of these children. Visual interference from lip-reading may be an obstacle during retraining. The better recognition of tones in the Mandarin language may represent a different sound discrimination mechanism in the auditory system, although it may also be related to the signal processing mechanisms of the implant used (MED-EL COMBI 40 ).     

Hearing benefits of second-side cochlear implantation in two groups of children

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the additional bilateral benefits of a second cochlear implant (CI) in a group of young children (<6 years of age) and a group of older children (>6 years of age). METHOD: This is a Belgian tertiary multi-centre study in which 33 CI-children with a second implant between the age of 2 and 12 participated. Assessments took place pre-second implant and at several time intervals post-fitting on pure tone audiometry and speech recognition in quiet and noise (+10 dBSNR). Testing was done with the first and second implant alone and bilaterally. Results were analysed separately for children younger and older than 6 years at the time of implantation of the 2nd CI. RESULTS: After 18 months of bilateral implant use all children obtained significantly higher hearing thresholds in the bilateral condition in comparison to both the unilateral conditions (p(CI1)=0.035/p(CI2)=0.042 for the younger children and p(CI1)=0.021/p(CI2)=0.007 for the older children). The speech recognition scores in quiet were for all children superior in the bilateral condition (p(CI2)=0.011 for the younger children and p(CI1)=0.016/p(CI2)=0.003 for the older children). In the noisy condition only significant bilateral better results were obtained in the group of younger children (p(CI1)=0.028/p(CI2)=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral cochlear implantation offers advantages to all children. Even for the children who received a second implant after the age of 6 a progress is determined after 18 months. However, the data appear to show a beneficial performance for those children who received their second implant before the age of 6, especially in the more challenging conditions.     

Word recognition by children listening to speech processed into a small number of channels: data from normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were 1) to determine the number of channels of stimulation needed by normal-hearing adults and children to achieve a high level of word recognition and 2) to compare the performance of normal-hearing children and adults listening to speech processed into 6 to 20 channels of stimulation with the performance of children who use the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. DESIGN: In Experiment 1, the words from the Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test (MLNT) were processed into 6 to 20 channels and output as the sum of sine waves at the center frequency of the analysis bands. The signals were presented to normal-hearing adults and children for identification. In Experiment 2, the wideband recordings of the MLNT words were presented to early-implanted and late-implanted children who used the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. RESULTS: Experiment 1: Normal-hearing children needed more channels of stimulation than adults to recognize words. Ten channels allowed 99% correct word recognition for adults; 12 channels allowed 92% correct word recognition for children. Experiment 2: The average level of intelligibility for both early- and late-implanted children was equivalent to that found for normal-hearing adults listening to four to six channels of stimulation. The best intelligibility for implanted children was equivalent to that found for normal-hearing adults listening to six channels of stimulation. The distribution of scores for early- and late-implanted children differed. Nineteen percent of the late-implanted children achieved scores below that allowed by a 6-channel processor. None of the early-implanted children fell into this category. CONCLUSIONS: The average implanted child must deal with a signal that is significantly degraded. This is likely to prolong the period of language acquisition. The period could be significantly shortened if implants were able to deliver at least eight functional channels of stimulation. Twelve functional channels of stimulation would provide signals near the intelligibility of wideband signals in quiet.     

The role of age in pediatric cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVE: To document progress, benefit and importance of age in paediatric cochlear implantation. DESIGN: The EARS (Evaluation of Auditory Responses to Speech) test battery was performed on 33 prelingually deaf children at regular intervals up to 36 months following implantation. All children participated in individually tailored intensive audiological rehabilitation programs after receiving their implants. In this respect, it was attempted to evaluate speech perception scores in children implanted before and after the age of 3 in a homogenous group. RESULTS: All children demonstrated encouraging improvements over time in their speech recognition abilities. Furthermore, it was observed that the children who were implanted under the age of 3 achieved higher levels of speech perception performance. CONCLUSION: In order to shorten the process of central maturation of the auditory system, it is desirable to implant the children as young as possible. Early intervention seems to be the ideal strategy in enabling prelingually deaf children to derive maximum benefit from cochlear implantation.     

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.     

Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures. PATIENTS: Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/-90 degrees . RESULTS: At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p < 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p < 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 +/- 6% (p < 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.     

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 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.     

Partial deafness cochlear implantation in children

OBJECTIVE: Partial deafness cochlear implantation and electric-acoustic stimulation have proven to be a useful method of treating adults with a ski-slope type hearing loss. Good hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes have been reported. This study aims to assess partial deafness cochlear implantation in children. METHOD: Nine children, ranging in age from 4.2 to 12 years, received a cochlear implant following the round window surgical technique for partial deafness cochlear implantation. Hearing preservation was assessed by pure-tone audiometry and speech perception outcomes were measured using monosyllable word tests in quiet and noise. Data are available for most children up to a period of 1 year. RESULTS: Hearing could be preserved partially in all cases, however, one child does not have sufficient preservation to make use of electric-acoustic stimulation. The eight children with sufficiently preserved hearing either use the natural low frequency hearing in combination with a cochlear implant to hear or use the DUET combined hearing system. Speech perception tests showed improvement in quiet and noise over time. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that partial deafness cochlear implantation is a viable treatment method in children. However, surgery should only be conducted by an experienced surgeon and parents need to be carefully counselled about the risks and benefits of partial deafness cochlear implantation.