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.     

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.     

Characteristics and determinants of music appreciation in adult CI users

The main objective of this study was to assess the associations between self-reported listening habits and perception of music and speech perception outcomes in quiet and noise for both unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users and bimodal (CI in one ear, hearing aid in contra-lateral ear) users. Information concerning music appreciation was gathered by means of a newly developed questionnaire. Moreover, audiological data (pure-tone audiometry, speech tests in noise and quiet) were gathered and the relationship between speech perception and music appreciation is studied. Bimodal users enjoy listening to music more in comparison with unilateral CI users. Also, music training within rehabilitation is still uncommon, while CI recipients believe that music training might be helpful to maximize their potential with current CI technology. Music training should not be exclusively reserved for the good speech performers. Therefore, a music training program (MTP) that consists of different difficulty levels should be developed. Hopefully, early implementation of MTP in rehabilitation programs can enable adult CI users to enjoy and appreciate music and to maximize their potential with commercially available technology. Furthermore, because bimodal users consider the bimodal stimulation to be the most enjoyable way to listen to music, CI users with residual hearing in the contra-lateral ear should be encouraged to continue wearing their hearing aid in that ear.     

Speech recognition performance in children with cochlear implants using bimodal stimulation

Cochlear implantees have considerably good speech understanding abilities in quiet surroundings. But, ambient noise poses significant difficulties in understanding speech for these individuals. Bimodal stimulation is still not used by many Indian implantees in spite of reports that bimodal stimulation is beneficial for speech understanding in noise as compared to cochlear implant alone and also prevents auditory deprivation in the un-implanted ear. The aim of the study is to evaluate the benefits of bimodal stimulation in children in an Indian cochlear implant clinic. A group of 14 children who have been using cochlear implants served as subjects in this study. They were fitted with advanced digital hearing aids in their un-implanted ears to provide bimodal stimulation. Results revealed that bimodal stimulation did not bring greater change in speech scores in quiet surroundings but have shown a noticeable improvement in noisy ambience. Hence the present study suggests that bimodal stimulation would benefit children with cochlear implants especially in adverse listening conditions.     

Bimodal benefit for cochlear implant listeners with different grades of hearing loss in the opposite ear

Objective: To determine speech perception in quiet and noise of adult cochlear implant listeners retaining a hearing aid contralaterally. Second, to investigate the influence of contralateral hearing thresholds and speech perception on bimodal hearing.

Patients and methods: Sentence recognition with hearing aid alone, cochlear implant alone and bimodally at 6 months after cochlear implantation were assessed in 148 postlingually deafened adults. Data were analyzed for bimodal summation using measures of speech perception in quiet and in noise.

Results: Most of the subjects showed improved sentence recognition in quiet and in noise in the bimodal condition compared to the hearing aid-only or cochlear implant-only mode. The large variability of bimodal benefit in quiet can be partially explained by the degree of pure tone loss. Also, subjects with better hearing on the acoustic side experience significant benefit from the additional electrical input.

Conclusions: Bimodal summation shows different characteristics in quiet and noise. Bimodal benefit in quiet depends on hearing thresholds at higher frequencies as well as in the lower- and middle-frequency ranges. For the bimodal benefit in noise, no correlation with hearing threshold in any frequency range was found.     

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.     

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。     

Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared preoperative and postoperative cochlear implant benefit in subjects with steeply sloping high-frequency hearing losses (HLs) who were implanted with standard long cochlear implant electrodes to: 1) determine the effect of etiology, 2) compare outcomes in studies exploring the use of combined electrical and acoustic stimulation, and 3) compare outcomes in patients implanted using standard criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Nine adults with steeply sloping high-frequency congenital (n=2) or acquired (n=7) bilateral sensorineural HL. All pure-tone audiograms fit the criteria for trials of a short electrode aimed at preserving low-frequency acoustic hearing. INTERVENTION: Subjects received full insertion of a standard cochlear implant long electrode in the poorer ear. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative versus postoperative audiograms, word and sentence recognition in quiet and noise. RESULTS: Patients with progressive acquired HLs experienced significantly improved speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the cochlear implant, especially when combined with hearing aid use in the contralateral ear. Patients with congenital HLs experienced little or no improvement in the implanted ear when tested with the implant alone, but achieved some benefit when the implant was combined with a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear. CONCLUSION: Based on this small sample, patients with acquired steeply sloping high-frequency HLs obtain significant benefit from cochlear implantation with standard long electrodes. In progressive losses, full insertion of a long electrode would be preferable to a short electrode because acoustic hearing may diminish over time. In contrast, patients with congenital losses may not benefit from long electrodes, and might be better served by implanting a short electrode, thereby allowing use of low-frequency acoustic stimulation.     

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).     

对侧助听器对人工耳蜗使用者言语感知贡献研究

目的探讨讲汉语普通话的人工耳蜗(Cochlear Implantation,以下简称CI)使用者对侧佩戴助听器(Hearing Aid,以下简称HA)的获益。方法:选取对侧使用HA的14名母语为汉语普通话的CI使用者,分别测试其在使用CI和CI+HA(即双模式)两种助听模式下的声调、双音节词、及句子的识别表现,并分析助听器耳残余听力对双模式言语表现的影响。结果:安静环境下使用CI和CI+HA模式下的声调识别率分别为67.6%±10.5%、71.6%±12.5%,双音节词识别率分别为72.3%±21.8%、74.2%±23.3%,句子识别率分别为62.3%±28.3%、61.8%±31.3%,噪声环境句子识别率分别为37.6%±36.5%、42.4%±35.9%。统计分析发现声调识别表现在CI+HA模式下显著优于CI模式(t=-2.285,P=0.04),其余言语识别表现在两种聆听模式下均无显著差异;且1000Hz及以下频率的助听器耳残余听力与CI+HA模式下言语识别表现显著相关。结论::对于"大龄"语前聋患者,一侧人工耳蜗植入联合对侧助听器的双模式应用,需考虑助听器耳的残余听力情况,极重度感音神经性聋助听器辅助效果有限,必要时需考虑双侧人工耳蜗植入。     

Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear

The aim of this study was to determine the improvement in speech recognition provided by a cochlear implant (CI) in conjunction with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear. The study was a retrospective cohort study in the context of a university teaching hospital CI programme. Seven CI patients who still use their HA in the opposite ear were tested. The scores with the CI alone and the CI in conjunction with an HA were evaluated by using three speech perception tests in quiet (Freiburger Numbers. Freiburger Monosyllables, and Innsbrucker Sentence Test). In the majority of tests and subjects. the CI alone performed better than the HA alone, and the bimodal (CI + HA) condition was superior to the CI alone. On the sentence test, the patients as a group improved from 47 96% (mean: 79%; CI alone) to 50-100% (mean: 88.1%; CI + HA, pv < 0.05). With the more difficult monosyllable test, the scores improved from 15-52% (mean: 37.2%; CI alone) to 15 82% (mean: 48.7%; CI + HA, p < 0.05). On the numbers test. scores increased from 65-98% (mean: 83%; CI alone) to 75-98% (mean: 88.7%; CI + HA, p < 0.05). All patients in this study were implanted in the poorer ear. The results of the present study suggest the advantage of CI usage in conjunction with an HA in the opposite ear.     

Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear

The aim of this study was to determine the improvement in speech recognition provided by a cochlear implant (CI) in conjunction with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear. The study was a retrospective cohort study in the context of a university teaching hospital CI programme. Seven CI patients who still use their HA in the opposite ear were tested. The scores with the CI alone and the CI in conjunction with an HA were evaluated by using three speech perception tests in quiet (Freiburger Numbers, Freiburger Monosyllables, and Innsbrucker Sentence Test). In the majority of tests and subjects, the CI alone performed better than the HA alone, and the bimodal (CI+HA) condition was superior to the CI alone. On the sentence test, the patients as a group improved from 47-96% (mean: 79%; CI alone) to 50-100% (mean: 88.1%; CI+HA, pv<0.05). With the more difficult monosyllable test, the scores improved from 15-52% (mean: 37.2%; CI alone) to 15-82% (mean: 48.7%; CI+ HA, p<0.05). On the numbers test, scores increased from 65-98% (mean: 83%; CI alone) to 75-98% (mean: 88.7%; CI+ HA, p<0.05). All patients in this study were implanted in the poorer ear. The results of the present study suggest the advantage of CI usage in conjunction with an HA in the opposite ear.     

Bimodal studies using adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO) technology

This study investigated the effects of adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO) processing for six bimodal listeners who used a hearing aid in one ear and a cochlear implant in the other. 'Bimodal' refers to the use of acoustic and electrical stimulation together. Bimodal speech recognition thresholds with the Japanese hearing in noise test were significantly lower for two ADRO devices than two non-ADRO devices in quiet, in noise from the front, and in noise from the implanted side. When the noise was presented from the non-implanted side there was no significant difference between the ADRO and non-ADRO conditions. The hearing aid measure of contrast questionnaire indicated that participants preferred ADRO in 77.3% of situations. ADRO was especially preferred in more difficult situations. The ADRO processing was designed for use in bimodal prostheses, and this study confirmed that speech intelligibility and sound quality improvements are obtainable by using ADRO in a bimodal context.     

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.     

Frequency-dependent loudness balancing in bimodal cochlear implant users

Conclusion In users of a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) in contralateral ears, frequency-dependent loudness balancing between devices did, on average, not lead to improved speech understanding as compared to broadband balancing. However, nine out of 15 bimodal subjects showed significantly better speech understanding with either one of the fittings. Objectives Sub-optimal fittings and mismatches in loudness are possible explanations for the large individual differences seen in listeners using bimodal stimulation. Methods HA gain was adjusted for soft and loud input sounds in three frequency bands (0–548, 548–1000, and?>1000?Hz) to match loudness with the CI. This procedure was compared to a simple broadband balancing procedure that reflected current clinical practice. In a three-visit cross-over design with 4 weeks between sessions, speech understanding was tested in quiet and in noise and questionnaires were administered to assess benefit in real world. Results Both procedures resulted in comparable HA gains. For speech in noise, a marginal bimodal benefit of 0.3?±?4?dB was found, with large differences between subjects and spatial configurations. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise did not differ between the two loudness balancing procedures.     

Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Prospective Study in Adults

Normal-hearing listeners gain important everyday benefits from having two ears, particularly for determining where sounds come from and for understanding speech in noisy environments. Users of two cochlear implants may have the opportunity to experience some of these bilateral advantages. The primary aim of this study was to document bilateral versus unilateral listening benefit in 15 postlinguistically deafened adults implanted simultaneously with two Harmony^® (HiRes 90K^®) cochlear implants. Speech perception (in quiet and in noise) and localization accuracy were assessed for each ear alone and both ears together. Subjects showed improved sound localization and better speech perception in quiet and in noise when using two implants compared with using one implant alone.