Objective: To update a 15-year-old study of 800 postlinguistically deaf adult patients showing how duration of severe to profound hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation (CI), age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss, etiology and CI experience affected CI outcome. Study Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: Data from 2251 adult patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected and speech scores in quiet were converted to percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. Results: The negative effect of long duration of severe to profound hearing loss was less important in the new data than in 1996; the effects of age at CI and age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss were delayed until older ages; etiology had a smaller effect, and the effect of CI experience was greater with a steeper learning curve. Patients with longer durations of severe to profound hearing loss were less likely to improve with CI experience than patients with shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss. Conclusions: The factors that were relevant in 1996 were still relevant in 2011, although their relative importance had changed. Relaxed patient selection criteria, improved clinical management of hearing loss, modifications of surgical practice, and improved devices may explain the differences.

/pdf/factors-affecting-auditory-performance-of-postlinguistically-39eiz61pbt.pdf

Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients

ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate 1) how a hearing aid needs to be adjusted for an adult who uses a cochlear implant in the contralateral ear; 2) whether the use of a hearing aid with a cochlear implant leads to interference; and 3) whether adults derive binaural benefits from using a hearing

Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Speech recognition in noise and music perception is especially challenging for current cochlear implant users. The present study utilizes the residual acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear in five cochlear implant users to elucidate the role of temporal fine structure at low frequencies in auditory perception and to test the hypothesis that combined acoustic and electric hearing produces better performance than either mode alone. The first experiment measured speech recognition in the presence of competing noise. It was found that, although the residual low-frequency (<1000 Hz) acoustic hearing produced essentially no recognition for speech recognition in noise, it significantly enhanced performance when combined with the electric hearing. The second experiment measured melody recognition in the same group of subjects and found that, contrary to the speech recognition result, the low-frequency acoustic hearing produced significantly better performance than the electric hearing. It is hypothesized that listeners with combined acoustic and electric hearing might use the correlation between the salient pitch in low-frequency acoustic hearing and the weak pitch in the envelope to enhance segregation between signal and noise. The present study suggests the importance and urgency of accurately encoding the fine-structure cue in cochlear implants.

/pdf/speech-and-melody-recognition-in-binaurally-combined-52u2trd1wk.pdf

Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing

The cochlear implant is the most successful of all neural prostheses developed to date. It is the most effective prosthesis in terms of restoration of function, and the people who have received a cochlear implant outnumber the recipients of other types of neural prostheses by orders of magnitude. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of contemporary cochlear implants from the perspective of two designers of implant systems. That perspective includes the anatomical situation presented by the deaf cochlea and how the different parts of an implant system (including the user's brain) must work together to produce the best results. In particular, we present the design considerations just mentioned and then describe in detail how the current levels of performance have been achieved. We also describe two recent advances in implant design and performance. In concluding sections, we first present strengths and limitations of present systems and then offer some possibilities for further improvements in this technology. In all, remarkable progress has been made in the development of cochlear implants but much room still remains for improvements, especially for patients presently at the low end of the performance spectrum.

/pdf/cochlear-implants-current-designs-and-future-possibilities-3pacbm9asw.pdf

Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities.

More than 60,000 people worldwide use cochlear implants as a means to restore functional hearing. Although individual performance variability is still high, an average implant user can talk on the phone in a quiet environment. Cochlear-implant research has also matured as a field, as evidenced by the exponential growth in both the patient population and scientific publication. The present report examines current issues related to audiologic, clinical, engineering, anatomic, and physiologic aspects of cochlear implants, focusing on their psychophysical, speech, music, and cognitive performance. This report also forecasts clinical and research trends related to presurgical evaluation, fitting protocols, signal processing, and postsurgical rehabilitation in cochlear implants. Finally, a future landscape in amplification is presented that requires a unique, yet complementary, contribution from hearing aids, middle ear implants, and cochlear implants to achieve a total solution to the entire spectrum of hearing loss treatment and management.

/pdf/trends-in-cochlear-implants-4cbgmyerjg.pdf

Trends in Cochlear Implants

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate 1) whether a hearing aid needs to be adjusted differently depending on whether a child wears a cochlear implant or another hearing aid in the contralateral ear; 2) whether the use of a hearing aid and a cochlear implant in opposite ears leads to binaural interference; and 3) whether the use of a hearing aid and a cochlear implant in opposite ears leads to binaural benefits in speech perception, localization, and communicative functioning in real life. Design Sixteen children participated in this study. All children used a Nucleus 22 or Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system programmed with the SPEAK strategy in one ear. The hearing aid amplification requirements in the nonimplanted ear of these children were determined using two procedures. A paired comparison technique was used to identify the frequency response that was best for speech intelligibility in quiet, and a loudness balancing technique was used to match the loudness of speech in the ear with a hearing aid to that with a cochlear implant. Eleven of the 16 children participated in the investigation of binaural effects. Performance in speech perception, localization, and communicative functioning was assessed under four aided conditions: cochlear implant with hearing aid as worn, cochlear implant alone, hearing aid alone, and cochlear implant with hearing aid adjusted according to individual requirements. Results Fifteen of the 16 children whose amplification requirements were determined preferred a hearing aid frequency response that was within +/-6 dB/octave of the NAL-RP prescription. On average, the children required 6 dB more gain than prescribed to balance the loudness of the implanted ear for a speech signal presented at 65 dB SPL. For all 11 children whose performance was evaluated for investigating binaural effects, there was no indication of significantly poorer performance under bilaterally aided conditions compared with unilaterally aided conditions. On average, there were significant benefits in speech perception, localization, and aural/oral function when the children used cochlear implants with adjusted hearing aids than when they used cochlear implants alone. All individuals showed benefits in at least one of the measures. Conclusions Hearing aids for children who also use cochlear implants can be selected using the NAL-RP prescription. Adjustment of hearing aid gain to match loudness in the implanted ear can facilitate integration of signals from both ears, leading to better speech perception. Given that there are binaural advantages from using cochlear implants with hearing aids in opposite ears, clinicians should advise parents and other professionals about these potential advantages, and facilitate bilateral amplification by adjusting hearing aids after stable cochlear implant MAPs are established.

Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear

Aim: The aim of this paper was to summarize the binaural advantages for sentence perception in noise and sound localization obtained by children and adults who wore a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid in opposite ears (bimodal hearing devices). Patients and Methods: We evaluated the speech perception and sound localization ability of 29 children and 21 adults who received a Nucleus CI system in one ear and wore a hearing aid in the other ear. All subjects used hearing aids that were adjusted systematically to complement their CIs. Performance with a CI and a hearing aid was compared with that with a CI alone. Results: On average, both children and adults derived binaural advantages relating to binaural redundancy and head shadow for sentence perception in noise. Neither the degree of hearing loss nor the duration of use of bimodal hearing devices was significantly related to the amount of binaural speech benefits. Both groups also located sounds better with CI and a hearing aid than with CI alone. Conclusions: The evidence supports the implementation of binaural/bimodal fittings as the standard management of children and adults who receive a unilateral CI and who have residual hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

An Overview of Binaural Advantages for Children and Adults Who Use Binaural/Bimodal Hearing Devices

This study was aimed at determining the effect of auditory experience on binaural benefits from using a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears. Eighteen children were evaluated using tests of speech perception, horizontal localization, and functional performance when they used either a cochlear implant alone (CI) or a cochlear implant with a hearing aid (CIHA). Eight were experienced CIHA users, whereas ten had not worn a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear for up to eight years prior to participation. All children were fitted with a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear using the NAL-RP prescription, and the hearing aids were fine-tuned individually using a paired-comparisons procedure and a loudness balancing test. Evaluation results indicated that performance for all measures was significantly better with CIHA than with CI for both groups of children. We conclude that children who receive a unilateral cochlear implant should be encouraged to wear a hearing aid in the opposite ear where there is usable residual hearing.

The effect of auditory experience on speech perception, localization, and functional performance of children who use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears

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.

Paula Incerti

Papers

Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear

An Overview of Binaural Advantages for Children and Adults Who Use Binaural/Bimodal Hearing Devices

The effect of auditory experience on speech perception, localization, and functional performance of children who use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears

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