双耳双模式助听患者的声调识别和音乐感知

双耳双模式是指一侧植入人工耳蜗，对侧佩戴助听器的助听方式，已帮助许多听力损失患者重新回到有声世界。本文就双耳双模式对助听患者的声调识别与音乐感知能力的效果进行综述，以期挖掘患者更多的听力潜能，使患者获得更好的生活。     

先天性语前聋中国儿童双耳人工耳蜗植入疗效观察

目的：评估双侧耳人工耳蜗植入对极重度感音神经性语前聋患儿的听觉与言语康复疗效。方法：2例先天性极重度感音神经性聋儿童，单侧耳人工耳蜗植入术后2年和3年分别施行对侧耳人工耳蜗植入。术后1年评估患儿左、右耳单耳及双耳人工耳蜗助听听阈和言语识别率。以及言语清晰度。结果：①双耳人工耳蜗助听与单耳人工耳蜗助听相比。平均听阈降低分别为13dB和11dB；②在安静环境中双耳人工耳蜗植入儿童的言语识别率(开放项列)分别平均提高为9％和10％，2例双耳人工耳蜗植入儿童的言语识别率(开放项列)分别达97％和95％；③在嘈杂环境中对言语的识别能力明显提高；④言语清晰度有明显改善。结论：双耳人工耳蜗植入可明显提高极重度感音神经性语前聋患儿在安静和噪声环境下的言语识别率，对语前聋儿童的言语和语言发育有明显的帮助。     

人工耳蜗植入患者双耳聆听的相关研究进展

人工耳蜗植入被广泛应用于治疗助听器无效或效果不理想的双侧重度或极重度感音神经性耳聋患者。近年来随着人们对聆听质量要求的提高,患者常采用非植入侧佩戴助听器的双耳双模式(Binaural-Bimodal Fitting, BIM)或双侧人工耳蜗植入(Bilateral cochlear implantation, BCI)等方法以获得双耳聆听。同时对于单侧聋(Single-sided deafness, SSD)患者来说,人们也开始尝试为其植入人工耳蜗以达到双耳聆听的效果。本文在回顾近些年文献的基础上,对于双耳聆听的优势、单侧聋患者的人工耳蜗植入、双侧感音神经性耳聋的双耳双模式聆听以及双侧人工耳蜗植入的研究进展进行综述。     

双耳双模式聆听的优势及目前存在的问题

近十年来,人工耳蜗植入已经成为治疗小儿和成人重度以上感音性神经性聋的标准疗法.但在耳聋患者中存在这样一群特殊患者,他们一侧耳重度或极重度聋,但对侧耳尚有一定的残余听力.在中国大多数此类患者接受了单侧人工耳蜗植入,形成了单耳听觉.然而对于这些患者,其单侧人工耳蜗植入在其音调、音乐感知以及声源定位等能力并没有达到理想状态,是以针对那些对侧耳有残余听力的单侧人工耳蜗植入者,出现了给非植入耳佩带助听器的“双耳双模装配”模式,从而使患者能够“双耳双模式聆听”.那么相对于单耳听觉或双耳耳蜗模式究竟有何优势,并且就目前的研究或是技术而言,还存在哪些主要的问题呢？本文在回顾近年文献的基础上,对这些问题做一综述.     

学龄前健听与听障儿童言语韵律组块功能的比较

目的 比较不同助听方式听障儿童和健听儿童言语韵律组块功能的差异。方法 以58例5.5～6.5岁学龄前健听及听障儿童为研究对象，其中健听儿童30例，双侧人工耳蜗植入儿童10例，双侧助听器佩戴儿童8例，双侧分别佩戴助听器和人工耳蜗的双耳双模式助听的听障儿童10例，采用《儿童言语韵律功能评估工具》中组块评估部分比较其组块功能表现的差异及其输入与输出维度表现的相关性。结果 (1)听障儿童韵律组块四个板块得分均显著落后于健听儿童(P<0.05);(2)不同助听方式听障儿童中，韵律组块输入维度的两个板块得分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);韵律组块输出维度的形式板块人工耳蜗植入组和双模式组的得分均显著低于助听器组(P<0.05),韵律组块输出维度的功能板块人工耳蜗植入组得分显著低于助听器组(P<0.05),其它各组得分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);(3)各类儿童输入与输出两个维度的评估结果无显著相关性(P>0.05)。结论 听障儿童韵律组块输入和输出均落后于同龄健听儿童。不同助听方式影响听障儿童韵律组块输出的表现，对其输入的影响不大，整体表现为：人工耳蜗...     

对侧使用助听器对人工耳蜗植入儿童句子识别能力的影响

目的：探讨安静环境和噪声环境下，人工耳蜗植入儿童在电声双模式(对侧使用助听器)和电模式(对侧不使用助听器)助听下的句子识别率差异。方法在安静环境和噪声环境中，分别对12例人工耳蜗植入儿童进行句子识别率测试，比较两种助听模式之间的识别率差异。结果在安静环境中，电声双模式助听的人工耳蜗植入儿童句子识别率为77.7%±15.0%，电模式助听下的句子识别率为73.0%±17.2%，两者之间差异显著(P<0.05)；在噪声环境中，电声双模式助听下的句子识别率为60.8%±24.5%，电模式助听下的句子识别率为54.8%±19.7%，两者之间差异显著(P<0.05)。结论在安静环境和噪声环境中，电声双模式助听的句子识别率均高于电模式助听的句子识别率。     

听障儿童双耳双模式配戴的声源定位能力初探*

目的探讨双耳双模式配戴能否帮助听障儿童改善声源定位能力以及哪些因素可能影响双耳双模式声源定位优势的发挥。方法采用强迫二选一任务,比较16名听障儿童在不同助听模式及不同声源角度下的声源定位能力。结果声源位于90°/270°时,38%的被试体现出双耳双模式的声源定位优势;位于45°/315°时,优势比例下降到25%。进一步分析表明,人工耳蜗麦克风的位置以及术前双耳配戴助听器的经验与双耳双模式声源定位优势的发挥密切相关。结论声源定位能力是听障儿童日常生活中的难点,即使双耳双模式配戴,也仅在声源位于左右方时,比单侧耳蜗状态体现出一定优势,随着声源角度的减小,双耳强度差和时间差线索减弱,双耳双模式的声源定位优势也随之减小。人工耳蜗的麦克风须放置在正确位置,否则会影响声源定位能力。此外,术前助听器配戴经验可能会影响听障儿童利用双耳线索的能力。     

不同助听模式下儿童言语康复效果分析

目的 探讨不同助听模式下儿童言语康复效果.方法 44例听障儿童按助听模式分为助听器(hearing aid,HA)组(HA组)14例,单侧人工耳蜗植入(cochlear implantation,CI)组(CI组)21例,双耳双模式组(CI+HA组)9例,分别于康复训练前、训练6、12、18、24个月后采用听障儿童语言...     

双模式助听儿童的皮层听觉诱发电位特征研究北大核心CSCD

目的探讨人工耳蜗及助听器(hearing aids,HA)双模式助听与单独人工耳蜗植入(cochlear implant,CI)患者皮层听觉诱发电位(cortical auditory evoked potential,CAEP)中P1及失匹配负波(mismatch negativity,MMN)的分化特征,对双模式助听效果进行客观评价。方法双模式助听儿童7例(双模式使用时长均不少于6个月),在CI与助听器达到最佳助听模式后,分别在双模式及单侧CI两种助听模式下,以/ba1/、/ba4/(即/ba/一声和四声)作为标准刺激与偏差刺激声进行声场下CAEP测试,分析两种模式下P1波和MMN的潜伏期与幅值的差异。结果双模式助听下CAEP的P1的潜伏期、幅值以及MMN的潜伏期、幅值分别为159.29±31.80 ms、1.86±3.12μV、245.29±58.82 ms、-2.16±1.34μV;单侧CI助听时分别为172.00±43.84 ms、1.26±2.85μV、288.29±54.00 ms、-1.63±1.19μV。双模式助听下P1及MMN潜伏期较单侧助听CI时显著缩短(P<0.05),P1及MMN幅值较单侧CI时呈现增大趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论CI及助听器双模式助听下CAEP的P1及MMN潜伏期较单侧CI助听时显著缩短,提示双模式助听下患者听觉辨别能力提高。     

24例双模式患者声源定位能力研究初步探索

目的 探索双模式患者是否能在日常使用设备设置条件下在声源定位方面获益。方法 研究共纳入24名双模式助听患者,对其进行安静环境水平方位声源识别任务测试。测试阵列由前方37个间隔5°的扬声器组成,刺激声信号为0.25,0.5,1,2,4,8 kHz啭音,强度为人工耳蜗（Cochlear Implant, CI）助听听阈阈上30 dB SPL。采用均方根误差（Root-mean-square error, RMSE）为评估指标。结果 单侧CI和双模式助听条件下受试者声源定位得分分别为81.95±11.33°和78.98±8.12°,无显著差异（t=1.232,P=0.230）。14名受试者双模式助听条件下声源定位能力优于仅CI助听,10名差于仅使用CI。上述两亚组受试者双耳助听听阈差值无显著差异（z=0.147, P=0.886）。年龄、耳聋时长、双模式助听时长与受试者声源定位能力无显著相关性（年龄：r=-0.102,P=0.636;耳聋时长：r=-0.312,P=0.137;双模式助听时长：r=0.360,P=0.867）。结论 双模式助听方式并没有显著改善单侧CI植入患者声源定位能力,同...     

Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review

There are now many recipients of unilateral cochlear implants who have usable residual hearing in the non-implanted ear. To avoid auditory deprivation and to provide binaural hearing, a hearing aid or a second cochlear implant can be fitted to that ear. This article addresses the question of whether better binaural hearing can be achieved with binaural/bimodal fitting (combining a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears) or bilateral implantation. In the first part of this article, the rationale for providing binaural hearing is examined. In the second part, the literature on the relative efficacy of binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation is reviewed. Most studies on comparing either mode of bilateral stimulation with unilateral implantation reported some binaural benefits in some test conditions on average but revealed that some individuals benefited, whereas others did not. There were no controlled comparisons between binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation and no evidence to support the efficacy of one mode over the other. In the third part of the article, a crossover trial of two adults who had binaural/bimodal fitting and who subsequently received a second implant is reported. The findings at 6 and 12 months after they received their second implant indicated that binaural function developed over time, and the extent of benefit depended on which abilities were assessed for the individual. In the fourth and final parts of the article, clinical issues relating to candidacy for binaural/ bimodal fitting and strategies for bimodal fitting are discussed with implications for future research.     

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.     

Binaural advantage on usage of hearing aid together with cochlear implant--examination on speech perception (Japanese monosyllable word list 67-S and Japanese HINT)]

Six cochlear implant recipients with hearing aids in the opposite ear were studied to survey binaural advantage. They were examined in separate tests by using a hearing aid alone, cochlear implant alone, and by using both devices (bimodal condition). Test items used were the Japanese monosyllable word list 67--S and Japanese HINT. Statistically significantly results were obtained in the bimodal condition, three out of six subjects were successful in the monosyllable word test and all successful in the Japanese HINT. We conclude that all subjects enjoyed binaural advantage in speech perception in bimodal condition with no conflict at the recognition level; even when different sounds from cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid were received. The plasticity of the brain is thought to be of importance in the bimodal condition.     

Binaural redundancy and inter-aural time difference cues for patients wearing a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears

We investigated speech perception advantages arising from the use of inter-aural time difference cues, and from the provision of redundant information by the use of a hearing aid contralateral to a cochlear implant (bimodal hearing devices). Thirty-eight subjects (14 normally hearing and 23 hearing-impaired) participated in this study. The effect of binaural redundancy was assessed by comparing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) required for 50% correct identification of sentences in noise when listening monaurally to that when listening binaurally. The use of inter-aural time difference cues was determined by comparing the binaural SNRs obtained with or without a noise delay of 700 micros between ears. Results indicated adults who used bimodal hearing devices benefited from binaural redundancy, but children did not. Whereas normally hearing subjects used inter-aural time difference cues to improve speech perception in noise, neither adults nor children who used bimodal hearing devices were able to do so.     

Binaural redundancy and inter-aural time difference cues for patients wearing a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears

We investigated speech perception advantages arising from the use of inter-aural time difference cues, and from the provision of redundant information by the use of a hearing aid contralateral to a cochlear implant (bimodal hearing devices). Thirty-eight subjects (14 normally hearing and 23 hearing-impaired) participated in this study. The effect of binaural redundancy was assessed by comparing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) required for 50% correct identification of sentences in noise when listening monaurally to that when listening binaurally. The use of inter-aural time difference cues was determined by comparing the binaural SNRs obtained with or without a noise delay of 700?µs between ears. Results indicated adults who used bimodal hearing devices benefited from binaural redundancy, but children did not. Whereas normally hearing subjects used inter-aural time difference cues to improve speech perception in noise, neither adults nor children who used bimodal hearing devices were able to do so.     

Performance in children with hearing aids or cochlear implants: bilateral stimulation and binaural hearing

It is well recognised that normal hearing people use their hearing in both ears to locate sounds and to understand speech in complex listening conditions. Whereas it is standard practice to provide two hearing aids to children with bilateral hearing loss, the situation with cochlear implantation is less certain. Questions remain as to what binaural aided functioning is possible for children who use a hearing aid and a cochlear implant in opposite ears (bimodal hearing). The first part of this paper draws on research at the National Acoustic Laboratories to show that children who used bimodal hearing devices obtained binaural advantages in localization. They could also take advantage of head shadow and binaural redundancy for speech intelligibility. The second part presents data showing that some hearing-impaired children may have binaural processing deficits even when bilateral stimulation is provided. Additional strategies may be necessary to develop or enable the use of binaural cues by these children.