Binaural–bimodal hearing: Concomitant use of a unilateral cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid

Conclusion. The benefit obtained with a contralateral hearing aid (HA) in unilateral cochlear implantees improves over time, at least during the first year after implantation. Objective. To evaluate binaural–bimodal auditory ability and its early changes over time after unilateral cochlear implantation in patients with residual hearing in the non-implanted ear, in which they use an HA. Material and methods. Sentence identification in background noise was tested in 12 patients (3 post-lingual adults and 9 pre-lingual adults and older children) under 3 listening conditions: cochlear implant (CI) alone, HA alone and CI?+?HA. The presentation level was 55 dB HL with a signal-to-noise ratio of +10 dB. Subjects were tested after 1–6 months of concomitant use of both devices and again after a further 7–12 months. Results. At the first testing session, the mean score in background noise was 34.9% with CI alone (range 0–90%) and 41.1% with both devices (range 0–100%). Seven patients could recognize sentences in noise with CI alone, and four of them showed further improvement with added amplification. At the second session, at which all subjects could recognize sentences in noise with the CI alone, seven showed further improvement with added amplification. The mean score was 60.6% with CI alone (range 10–99%) and 75.5% with both devices (range 52–100%).     

有低频残余听力感音神经聋的人工耳蜗植入术

目的介绍一种有低频残余听力感音神经聋的人工耳蜗植入技术,探讨人工耳蜗植入手术对有残余听力患者的治疗效果和价值。方法15例有残余听力的患者接受了保护残余听力的人工耳蜗植入手术。术中电极植入深度在19mm～24mm左右。术后分别检测单纯使用助听器、单纯使用人工耳蜗、人工耳蜗结合助听器三种不同状态下的听力。结果15例患者中,有13例术后残余听力保存良好,仅分别丢失5～20dB听力,但另2例术后残余听力全部丧失。术后在安静、信噪比15dB和10dB三种不同状态下的言语测试结果显示,人工耳蜗结合助听器使用者测试得分始终保持在很高水平;单纯使用人工耳蜗者也有较好的成绩,但在信噪比达10dB的条件下,测试成绩下降;而单纯使用助听器者,不仅在安静状态下听力成绩不甚理想,一旦加入竞争性噪声,听力测试成绩急剧下降。结论保护和利用残余听力的人工耳蜗植入技术,使人工耳蜗植入手术对象从重度或极重度聋扩大到高频为重度或极重度聋,低频（≤500Hz）为中、轻度聋的患者。接受这项技术患者的听力和言语识别能力均明显优于其单纯配戴助听器和单纯使用人工耳蜗时的听力和言语识别能力。     

Hearing progress and fluctuations in bimodal–binaural hearing users (unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aid)

Conclusions. Mean scores achieved using a cochlear implant (CI) plus a hearing aid (HA) were consistently higher (statistically non-significant) than those for CI alone. The addition of a contralateral HA partially compensated for the negative hearing fluctuations as well as for the slow initial progress with the CI. Objectives. To examine hearing progress over the first 3 years after unilateral cochlear implantation in users who had residual hearing in the non-implanted ear at the time of surgery and continued to use a HA in that ear thereafter. Patients and methods. Thirteen patients were followed up for 36months after continuous concomitant use of a CI and a contralateral HA. To evaluate hearing progress, sentence identification in background noise (presentation level, 55dB; S/N ratio, +10 dB) was tested for CI alone and for CI with contralateral HA (CI+HA). Subjects were tested after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36months of concomitant use of both devices. Mixed regression model was used to evaluate the group's progression of scores and the added value of a contralateral HA over time. Results. When last tested (36 months after CI) the mean group score for CI alone was 72.6%±19.3%, and 12/13 patients scored at least 65% with either CI alone or CI+HA. Mean scores achieved using CI+HA were consistently higher than those for CI alone. Percentage improvement in CI+HA relative to CI alone was highest (19.2%) after 18 months of concomitant usage and then diminished gradually to 7.7% at 36months. Most patients showed some negative fluctuations in performance with CI alone at some point during the 36months of post-CI follow-up.     

Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the conservation of residual hearing in recipients of the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance cochlear implant (CI) and the benefits of combined electrical and acoustic stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study. SETTING: CI clinics in Western Europe. PATIENTS: Adult candidates for conventional cochlear implantation with a minimum preoperative word recognition score of 10% in the ear to be implanted. INTERVENTION: "Soft-surgery" protocol, including a 1- to 1.2-mm anterior and inferior cochleostomy hole with the electrode array, inserted 17 mm using the "advance-off-stylet" technique. Patients with postoperative pure-tone hearing threshold levels (HTLs) of 80 dB hearing loss or less at 125 and 250 Hz and 90 dB hearing loss or less at 500 Hz were refitted with an in-the-ear hearing aid for combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic (El-Ac) stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A questionnaire to collect information regarding surgery. Pure-tone HTLs measured at intervals. Word recognition tested in quiet and sentence recognition tested in noise at 10 and 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). HEARING CONSERVATION RESULTS: HTL data were available for 27 patients. HTLs were conserved within 20 dB of preoperative levels for 33, 26, and 19% of patients for 125, 250, and 500 Hz, respectively. However, the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly followed in only 12 of 27 patients. For these 12 patients, hearing thresholds were conserved within 20 dB for 50, 50, and 33% of patients. Median threshold increases were 40 dB (range, 250-500 Hz) for the whole group and 23 dB for the strict surgery group. Ten patients retained sufficient HTLs to enter the El-Ac user group. SPEECH RECOGNITION RESULTS: Group mean recognition scores for nine El-Ac users for words presented at 65 dB sound pressure level were 45% for CI alone and 55% for CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in noise at 5 dB SNR, mean word scores were 46% CI alone and 56% CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.01, paired t). CONCLUSION: Hearing was conserved for conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly adhered. Combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation provided considerable benefits for speech recognition in noise, equivalent to between 3 and 5 dB SNR, compared with CI alone.     

Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.

This study aimed to (a) investigate the effect of using a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears on speech perception in quiet and in noise, (b) identify the speech information obtained from a hearing aid that is additive to the information obtained from a cochlear implant, and (c) explore the relationship between aided thresholds in the nonimplanted ear and speech perception benefit from wearing a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears.Fourteen adults who used the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system in 1 ear participated in the study. All participants had either used a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear for at least 75% of waking hours after cochlear implantation, and/or, hearing loss less than 90 dB HL in the low frequencies in the nonimplanted ear. Speech perception was evaluated in 3 conditions: cochlear implant alone (CI), hearing aid alone (HA), and cochlear implant in conjunction with hearing aid in opposite ears (CIHA). Three speech perception tests were used: consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words in quiet, City University of New York style (CUNY) sentences in coincident signal and noise, and spondees in coincidental and spatially separated signal and noise. Information transmission analyses were performed on the CNC responses.Of the 14 participants tested, 6 showed significant bimodal benefit on open-set speech perception measures and 5 showed benefit on close-set spondees. However, 2 participants showed poorer speech perception with CIHA than CI in at least 1 of the speech perception tests. Results of information transmission analyses showed that bimodal benefit (performance with CIHA minus that with CI) in quiet arises from improved perception of the low frequency components in speech. Results showed that participants with poorer aided thresholds in the mid-to-high frequencies demonstrated greater bimodal benefit. It is possible that the mid-to-high frequency information provided by the hearing aids may be conflicting with the cochlear implants.     

Natural history of contralateral residual hearing in unilateral cochlear implant users - long-term findings

Abstract Conclusion: The long-term stability of low-frequency residual hearing found in a significant number of bilateral-bimodal users (cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) on the other ear; CI/HA) with severe-to-profound or profound hearing loss in the non-implanted ear justifies bilateral-bimodal fitting efforts in this group. Since low-frequency residual hearing tends to deteriorate in some of these CI/HA users, periodic evaluation, which includes pure-tone thresholds and speech perception tests, is mandatory for determining the point in time at which CI/HA hearing is no longer effective, and the patient should accordingly be considered as a candidate for contralateral cochlear implantation. Objective: To determine, in bilateral-bimodal (CI/HA) users with severe-to-profound or profound hearing loss in the non-implanted ear, the rate of residual hearing deterioration in the non-implanted ear after cochlear implantation. Methods: Pure-tone aided and unaided thresholds in the non-implanted ears of 39 CI/HA users at 0.25-4.0 kHz were recorded prospectively up to 6 years after implantation. Results: Group mean threshold values in the non-implanted ears remained stable over 3, 4, 5 and 6 years post-implantation, except for significant deterioration at 4.0 kHz of both unaided (4.2, 5.2, 9.0 and 8.2 dB, respectively) and aided thresholds (8.1, 4.6, 6.1 and 8.3 dB, respectively).     

双侧植入人工耳蜗对儿童选择性听取能力影响的个案研究

目的探讨双侧人工耳蜗植入儿童在噪音环境下的选择性听取能力。方法采用实验法,研究个案在不同信噪比条件（SNR=0,10,20）下,单,双侧耳识别双音节词和短句的能力。测试使用计算机导航系统给声。结果在双音节词识别方面,当SNR=20和SNR=10时,单、双耳的识别率都为100％;但当SNR=0时,单、双耳识别率同时下降,结果较为接近。在短句识别方面,SNR=20和SNR=10时的结果相似,但单。双耳之间的差异较为明显;当SNR=0时,单、双耳识别率同时下降,结果较为接近。结论双侧人工耳蜗提高了该儿童在背景噪声中的选择性听取技能。SNR=20和SNR=10时,单耳和双耳的选择性听取能力都没有显著差异,但双耳明显好于单耳。在SNR=0时,单耳和双耳的选择性听取能力明显下降,且双耳和单耳差异缩小。     

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.     

Cochlear implants for children with significant residual hearing

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that children with pure-tone averages of greater than 90 dB hearing level and/or open-set sentence perception of less than 30% may derive significant benefit from cochlear implantation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative speech perception benefit and bilateral-bimodal benefit for 16 children whose preimplant speech perception scores exceeded conservative candidacy guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: Preimplant and postimplant repeated-measure design. METHODS: Sixteen child subjects who obtained 30% or greater on preimplant open-set sentence material, presented live voice audition alone, were selected for this study. Preimplant pure-tone averages ranged from 73 to 110 dB in the better aided ear. Preimplant and postimplant open-set word and sentence testing was completed in quiet and with competing background noise for separate ear and binaural conditions. RESULTS: Fourteen of 16 subjects had improved speech perception scores across all test materials after implantation. Group means were significantly higher for all test materials. Results in the bimodal-bilateral condition were significantly higher than implant alone for open-set word tests (scored for phonemes) and open-set sentences in quiet. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that, with appropriate counseling and management, some children with significant residual hearing benefit from cochlear implantation, in particular improved speech understanding due to bimodal-bilateral hearing.     

Natural history of contralateral residual hearing in binaural-bimodal hearing

Conclusions. The range of evaluation tools used in deciding which ear to implant and which to designate for a hearing aid (HA) should be expanded to include additional aspects to those tested by audiometry and basic speech perception. Residual hearing in non-implanted ears remains stable for at least 3 years after unilateral cochlear implantation, but regular refitting and monitoring of the HA function combined with cochlear implant (CI) mapping are mandatory for maximizing benefit from binaural-bimodal hearing. Objectives. To examine whether the clinical decision-making tools currently used to assess hearing are reliable guides when choosing the preferred ear for CI, and to determine the rate of residual hearing deterioration in the non-implanted ear over 36 months post-CI as a guide to recommending subsequent continued use of a contralateral HA as opposed to CI. Patients and methods. This was a retrospective evaluation of patients’ charts. The pre-CI choice of the ear for implantation in a group of 37 binaural-bimodal users was re-evaluated. In a second group of 22 patients, residual hearing deterioration was followed for 36 months post-implantation. Results. In the group of 37 patients, subjective identification of the worse-hearing ear was in agreement with audiometric results in 28 cases, but disagreed with the unaided audiometric results in the other 9. Mean threshold values for the group of 22 patients remained stable over 36 months post-CI, except for the aided threshold at 4.0kHz, which deteriorated by 10.9dB (p=0.003).     

Combined electroacoustic stimulation in conventional candidates for cochlear implantation

Objective:To report on combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation in a subset of conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where preoperative pure tone thresholds were 85-110 dB HL, 250-500 Hz). In the remaining 7 cases, residual hearing was maintained up to at least 6 months after operation with minor changes. Insertion depth angles in these cases ranged from 285 to 420 degrees . For these subjects, the mean preoperative score for words presented at 65 dB SPL was 22%. Mean postoperative scores were 56% for CI alone, and 68% for CI plus ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in multitalker babble noise at 5 dB SNR, mean scores were 61% CI alone, and 75% CI+IpsiHA (p < 0.01, paired t). Conclusions: Hearing was conserved during surgery and over time in 70% of conventional candidates implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance CI who had significant levels of preoperative low-frequency residual hearing (相似文献   

Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study

CONCLUSIONS: Our study data demonstrate the additional benefit derived from continued use of a contralateral hearing aid (HA) post-cochlear implantation for speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise. Postoperative bimodal stimulation is recommended for all subjects who show some speech recognition ability in the contralateral ear as it may offer binaural listening advantages in various listening situations encountered in everyday life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits derived from bimodal stimulation for experienced HA users implanted with a cochlear implant (CI) (score=20% in disyllabic test). The correlation between pre- and postoperative performance on speech perception measures was examined to determine additional criteria for recommending bimodal stimulation postoperatively. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A within-subject repeated-measures design was used, with each subject acting as their own control. Assessments were carried out preoperatively in aided monaural and best-aided conditions and at 6 months postoperatively in CI-alone, contralateral HA-alone and bimodal listening conditions. Speech recognition using Spanish words and sentences materials was assessed at conversational level and for soft speech in quiet. Speech comprehension in noise was assessed using word materials at a signal:noise ratio of +10, for coincident speech in noise and for spatially separated speech in noise. Twelve adult native Spanish subjects with a severe-to-profound hearing impairment who were experienced with optimally fitted conventional amplification and who displayed suboptimal speech understanding preoperatively were enrolled in the study. Preoperatively, conventional amplification was worn by five subjects binaurally and by seven monaurally. RESULTS: Postoperatively, superior speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise for disyllabic words was achieved using bimodal stimulation in comparison to performance for either monaural aided condition. Mean improvement in speech recognition in the bimodal condition was significant over performance in the CI-alone condition for disyllabic words in quiet at 70 (p=0.006) and 55 dB SPL (p=0.028), for disyllabic words in noise at +10 dB with speech and noise spatially separated with the noise source closest to the contralateral HA (S0NHA) (p=0.0005) and when the noise source was closest to the CI ear (S0NCI) (p=0.002). When testing word recognition in noise with speech and noise sources coincident in space, word scores were superior in the bimodal condition relative to the CI-alone condition but this improvement was not significant (p=0.07). The advantages of bimodal stimulation included significant effects of binaural summation in quiet and significant binaural squelch effects in both the S0NHA and S0NCI test conditions. All subjects showed superior performance in the binaural situation postoperatively relative to the best-aided condition preoperatively for one or more test situations.     

Amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness: speech in noise and directional hearing effects with bone-anchored hearing and contralateral routing of signal amplification.

OBJECTIVE: Vibromechanical stimulation with a semi-implantable bone conductor (Entific BAHA device) overcomes some of the head-shadow effects in unilateral deafness. What specific rehabilitative benefits are observed when the functional ear exhibits normal hearing versus moderate sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL)? DESIGN: The authors conducted a prospective trial of subjects with unilateral deafness in a tertiary care center. PATIENTS: This study comprised adults with unilateral deafness (pure-tone average [PTA] > 90 dB; Sp.D. < 20%) and either normal monaural hearing (n = 18) or moderate SNHL (PTA = 25-50 dB: Sp.D. > 75%) in the contralateral functional ear (n = 5). INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were fit with contralateral routing of signal (CROS) devices for 1 month and tested before (mastoid) implantation, fitting, and testing with a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were: 1) subjective benefit; 2) source localization tests (Source Azimuth Identification in Noise Test [SAINT]); 3) speech discrimination in quiet and in noise assessed with Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) protocols. RESULTS: There was consistent satisfaction with BAHA amplification and poor acceptance of CROS amplification. General directional hearing decreased with CROS use and was unchanged by BAHA and directional microphone aids. Relative to baseline and CROS, BAHA produced significantly better speech recognition in noise. Twenty-two of 23 subjects followed up in this study continue to use their BAHA device over an average follow-up period of 30.24 months (range, 51-12 months). CONCLUSION: BAHA amplification on the side of a deaf ear yields greater benefit in subjects with monaural hearing than does CROS amplification. Advantages likely related to averting the interference of speech signals delivered to the better ear, as occurs with conventional CROS amplification, while alleviating the negative head-shadow effects of unilateral deafness. The advantages of head-shadow reduction in enhancing speech recognition with noise in the hearing ear outweigh disadvantages inherent in head-shadow reduction that can occur by introducing noise from the deaf side. The level of hearing impairment correlates with incremental benefit provided by the BAHA. Patients with a moderate SNHL in the functioning ear perceived greater increments in benefit, especially in background noise, and demonstrated greater improvements in speech understanding with BAHA amplification.     

Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVES: As results with cochlear implants have continued to improve, patients with some remaining cochlear function have become eligible for cochlear implantation. Thus, preservation of acoustic hearing after implantation has gained importance. Hearing preservation can be considered a benchmark for atraumatic implantation preventing neural degeneration from loss of residual hair cells or subsequent to local trauma. In this prospective study, the possibility of preserving low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation using a modified surgical technique has been explored. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective study design, 14 subjects with considerable low-frequency hearing of 20-60 dB in the frequency range 125-500 Hz but with unsatisfactory speech understanding with hearing aids of < 35% monosyllabic word understanding were implanted with a MED-EL COMBI-40+ cochlear implant. The insertion depth was intentionally limited to 19-24 mm to prevent damage to low-frequency regions of the cochlea. Pre- and postoperative pure-tone thresholds were measured. RESULTS: Hearing was conserved within 0-10 dB in 9/14 subjects and within 11-20 dB in 3/14; in 2/14 subjects hearing was completely lost in the implanted ear. Thus hearing could at least partially be conserved in 12/14 subjects (86%). Median threshold values decreased by 10, 15, 17.5 and 5 dB at 125, 250, 500 and 1000 Hz, respectively. Even high levels of hearing, e.g. 30 dB at 500 Hz, could be maintained after implantation in some subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports successful conservation of hearing after cochlear implantation using a modified surgical technique. Even high levels of hearing could be maintained, showing that implantation of an intracochlear electrode can be performed atraumatically with preservation of functional structures.     

Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why

CONCLUSIONS: Hearing may be conserved in adults after implantation with the Nucleus Contour Advance perimodiolar electrode array. The degree of hearing preservation and the maximum insertion depth of the electrode array can vary considerably despite a defined surgical protocol. Residual hearing combined with electrical stimulation in the same ear can provide additional benefits even for conventional candidates for cochlear implantation. OBJECTIVES: We present preliminary results from a prospective multicentre study investigating the conservation of residual hearing after implantation with a standard-length Nucleus Contour Advance perimodiolar electrode array and the benefits of combined electrical and acoustic stimulation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The subjects were 12 adult candidates for cochlear implantation recruited according to national selection criteria. A "soft" surgery protocol was defined, as follows: 1-1.2-mm cochleostomy hole anterior and inferior to the round window; Nucleus Contour Advance electrode array inserted using the "Advance-off-stylet" technique; and insertion depth controlled by means of three square marker ribs left outside the cochleostomy hole. These procedures had been shown to reduce insertion forces in temporal bone preparations. Variations in surgical techniques were monitored using a questionnaire. Pure-tone thresholds were measured pre- and postoperatively. Patients who still retained thresholds <90 dB HL for frequencies up to 500 Hz were re-fitted with an in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid. Word recognition was tested in quiet and sentence perception in noise for the cochlear implant alone and in combination with an ipsilateral hearing aid. RESULTS: Hearing threshold level data were available for 12 patients recruited from 6 of the centres. Median increases in hearing threshold levels were 23, 27 and 33 dB for the frequencies 125, 250 and 500 Hz, respectively. These median increases include the data for two patients who had total loss of residual hearing due to difficulties encountered during surgery. "Cochlear view" X-ray images indicated that the depth of insertion varied between 300 and 430 degrees, despite modest variations in the length of the electrode inserted (17-19 mm). The insertion angle had some influence on the preservation of residual hearing at frequencies of 250-500 Hz. Six of the 12 patients retained sufficient hearing for effective use of an ipsilateral ITE hearing aid (< or = 80 dB HL at 125 and 250 Hz; < or = 90 dB HL at 500 Hz). Word recognition scores in quiet were improved from 10% to 30% with the cochlear implant plus ipsilateral hearing aid in 3 patients who had at least 3 months postoperative experience. Signal:noise ratio thresholds for sentence recognition were improved by up to 3 dB. Patients reported that they experienced greatly improved sound quality and preferred to use the two devices together.     

A comparison of the consonant production between Dutch children using cochlear implants and children using hearing aids

Objectives

The main purpose of the present study was to compare the consonant error patterns of Dutch prelingually deaf CI children with prelingually hearing-impaired hearing aid (HA) children. The authors hypothesized that subjects using conventional hearing aids would have poorer consonant production skills. Additionally, the impact of the age at implantation (CI) and the degree of hearing loss (HA) was determined.

Methodology

This is a comparative study of 29 prelingually deaf CI children (m.a. 9;0 y) and 32 prelingually hearing-impaired HA children (m.a. 9;11 y) who received their first hearing aid before the age of 2 years. Nineteen CI children were implanted before the age of 5 years. Nine HA children had thresholds above 90 dB (range: 91-105 dB), 15 between 70 and 90 dB (range: 72-90 dB) and 8 below 70 dB (range: 58-68 dB). Speech samples of all the children were elicited by means of a picture naming test and were video-recorded for further phonetic and phonological analysis.

Results

Considerably more phonetic and phonologic errors were observed in the HA children with thresholds above 70 dB (range: 72-105 dB). No notable differences could be found between deaf CI children and HA children with thresholds below 70 dB. Even children implanted after the age of 5 years showed significantly fewer phonetic and phonological errors than HA children.

Conclusion

The consonant production of implanted children is more adequate than the consonant production of HA children with a hearing loss of 70 dB or more. In addition, the results also indicate that even after the age of 5 years, implantation can still have an advantageous effect on a child's consonant production.     

Bimodal benefits of cochlear implant and hearing aid (on the non-implanted ear): a pilot study to develop a protocol and a test battery

ABSTRACT This is a pilot study that aims (1) to help design a protocol for fitting and optimizing cochlear implants and hearing aids, (2) to help design a test battery that can help monitor children's progress and (3) to assess the benefit of using a cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid. Seven children between the ages of seven and 15 years completed the study. None of them had worn a contralateral hearing aid (HA) since cochlear implantation (five to seven years after implantation). The Listening Inventory for Education (LIFE), Life Situation Questionnaire (LSQ), and Client Orientated Scale of Improvement for Children (COSI-C) questionnaires together with subject's feedback were used as subjective measures, and speech perception tests - the City of New York (sentences list) (CUNY) and Bamford-Kowal-Bench (sentences list) (BKB) depending on child's speech perception skills - in quiet and in noise were used as objective measures. The results showed mixed subjective feedback, even though objectively all children improved their speech perception scores when wearing cochlear implants and hearing aids. The COSI-C proved to be the most successful tool to collect feedback from parents.     

Successful cochlear implantation in a patient with superficial siderosis

OBJECTIVE: To define the presentation and outcome of cochlear implantation in a patient with profound sensorineural hearing loss due to superficial siderosis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. RESULTS: Postimplantation speech reception threshold was 34 dB, and hearing in noise testing sentences were 71% demonstrating a successful outcome. These results have been maintained for 5 years after implantation. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation is a potentially successful rehabilitation option for certain patients with profound sensorineural hearing loss due to superficial siderosis.