http://web.mit.edu/hst.723/www/ThemePapers/Implants/WilsonDormanReview2008.pdf

Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future

Five bilateral cochlear implant users were tested for their localization abilities and speech understanding in noise, for both monaural and binaural listening conditions. They also participated in lateralization tasks to assess the impact of variations in interaural time delays (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs) for electrical pulse trains under direct computer control. The localization task used pink noise bursts presented from an eight-loudspeaker array spanning an arc of approximately 108° in front of the listeners at ear level (0-degree elevation). Subjects showed large benefits from bilateral device use compared to either side alone. Typical root-mean-square (rms) averaged errors across all eight loudspeakers in the array were about 10° for bilateral device use and ranged from 20° to 60° using either ear alone. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for sentences presented from directly in front of the listeners (0°) in spectrally matching speech-weighted noise at either 0°, +90° or −90° for four subjects out of five tested who could perform the task. For noise to either side, bilateral device use showed a substantial benefit over unilateral device use when noise was ipsilateral to the unilateral device. This was primarily because of monaural head-shadow effects, which resulted in robust SRT improvements (P<0.001) of about 4 to 5 dB when ipsilateral and contralateral noise positions were compared. The additional benefit of using both ears compared to the shadowed ear (i.e., binaural unmasking) was only 1 or 2 dB and less robust (P=0.04). Results from the lateralization studies showed consistently good sensitivity to ILDs; better than the smallest level adjustment available in the implants (0.17 dB) for some subjects. Sensitivity to ITDs was moderate on the other hand, typically of the order of 100 μs. ITD sensitivity deteriorated rapidly when stimulation rates for unmodulated pulse-trains increased above a few hundred Hz but at 800 pps showed sensitivity comparable to 50-pps pulse-trains when a 50-Hz modulation was applied. In our opinion, these results clearly demonstrate important benefits are available from bilateral implantation, both for localizing sounds (in quiet) and for listening in noise when signal and noise sources are spatially separated. The data do indicate, however, that effects of interaural timing cues are weaker than those from interaural level cues and according to our psychophysical findings rely on the availability of low-rate information below a few hundred Hz.

Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants

Objective:Up to now, treatment modalities of unilateral deafness consist of no treatment, conventional contralateral routing of signal (CROS), or Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) hearing aid. Cochlear implantation makes a new treatment modality available for patients with single-sided deafness. The

Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus.

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

Several recent reports indicate that both localization and speech intelligibility in spatially separated noise are substantially improved by using cochlear implants (CIs) in both ears rather than in just one. Benefits appear to be largely derived from the effects of level variations at the two ears due to the head shadow whereas contributions from interaural time differences (ITDs) seem smaller than in normal hearing listeners. The effect of binaural unmasking estimated from speech studies to date varies from study to study and is possibly confounded by issues such as listening experience, bias or loudness effects when comparing the performance for the better ear with that using both ears. To improve the contribution from timing information at the two ears, it may be necessary to change present clinical sound-processing schemes that currently preserve only envelope cues so that they also preserve fine-timing information. However, recently published data show that basic psychophysical sensitivity to fine-timing ITDs in CI patients is very poor for rates beyond a few hundred hertz, suggesting that subjects do not actually hear ITD cues at those rates anyway. Data from a number of new studies are presented to discuss these and other issues related to the potential to benefit from bilateral implantation.

Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES To characterize some of the benefits available from using two cochlear implants compared with just one, sound-direction identification (ID) abilities, sensitivity to interaural time delays (ITDs) and speech intelligibility in noise were measured for a bilateral multi-channel cochlear implant user. METHODS Sound-direction ID in the horizontal plane was tested with a bilateral cochlear implant user. The subject was tested both unilaterally and bilaterally using two independent behind-the-ear ESPRIT (Cochlear Ltd.) processors, as well as bilaterally using custom research processors. Pink noise bursts were presented using an 11-loudspeaker array spanning the subject's frontal 180 degrees arc in an anechoic room. After each burst, the subject was asked to identify which loudspeaker had produced the sound. No explicit training, and no feedback were given. Presentation levels were nominally at 70 dB SPL, except for a repeat experiment using the clinical devices where the presentation levels were reduced to 60 dB SPL to avoid activation of the devices' automatic gain control (AGC) circuits. Overall presentation levels were randomly varied by +/- 3 dB. For the research processor, a "low-update-rate" and a "high-update-rate" strategy were tested. Direct measurements of ITD just noticeable differences (JNDs) were made using a 3 AFC paradigm targeting 70% correct performance on the psychometric function. Stimuli included simple, low-rate electrical pulse trains as well as high-rate pulse trains modulated at 100 Hz. Speech data comparing monaural and binaural performance in noise were also collected with both low, and high update-rate strategies on the research processors. Open-set sentences were presented from directly in front of the subject and competing multi-talker babble noise was presented from the same loudspeaker, or from a loudspeaker placed 90 degrees to the left or right of the subject. RESULTS For the sound-direction ID task, monaural performance using the clinical devices showed large mean absolute errors of 81 degrees and 73 degrees, with standard deviations (averaged across all 11 loud-speakers) of 10 degrees and 17 degrees, for left and right ears, respectively. Fore bilateral device use at a presentation level of 70 dB SPL, the mean error improved to about 16 degrees with an average standard deviation of 18 degrees. When the presentation level was decreased to 60 dB SPL to avoid activation of the automatic gain control (AGC) circuits in the clinical processors, the mean response error improved further to 8 degrees with a standard deviation of 13 degrees. Further tests with the custom research processors, which had a higher stimulation rate and did not include AGCs, showed comparable response errors: around 8 or 9 degrees and a standard deviation of about 11 degrees for both update rates. The best ITD JNDs measured for this subject were between 350 to 400 microsec for simple low-rate pulse trains. Speech results showed a substantial headshadow advantage for bilateral device use when speech and noise were spatially separated, but little evidence of binaural unmasking. For spatially coincident speech and noise, listening with both ears showed similar results to listening with either side alone when loudness summation was compensated for. No significant differences were observed between binaural results for high and low update-rates in any test configuration. Only for monaural listening in one test configuration did the high rate show a small significant improvement over the low rate. CONCLUSION Results show that even if interaural time delay cues are not well coded or perceived, bilateral implants can offer important advantages, both for speech in noise as well as for sound-direction identification.

Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user.

Sensitivity to binaural cues was studied in 11 bilateral cochlear implant users, all of whom received both of their cochlear implants as adults, but who varied in the age at onset of deafness, from pre-lingual to childhood-onset to adult-onset. Sensitivity to interaural timing difference (ITD) and interaural level difference (ILD) cues was measured at basal, middle, and apical pitch-matched places of stimulation along the cochlear arrays, using a stimulation rate of 100 Hz. Results show that there is a trend for people whose onset of deafness occurred during adult life or late childhood to retain at least some sensitivity to ITDs, whereas people with onset of deafness earlier in life were insensitive to ITDs. In contrast, ILD cue sensitivity was present in all subjects. There were no effects of place of stimulation on binaural sensitivity, suggesting that there is no indication of a dependence of ITD sensitivity on apical vs basal electrode location.

/pdf/effect-of-age-at-onset-of-deafness-on-binaural-sensitivity-to2v71yuh7.pdf

Effect of age at onset of deafness on binaural sensitivity in electric hearing in humans

Various measures of binaural timing sensitivity were made in three bilateral cochlear implant users, who had demonstrated moderate-to-good interaural time delay (ITD) sensitivity at 100 pulses-per-second (pps) Overall, ITD thresholds increased at higher pulse rates, lower levels, and shorter durations, although intersubject differences were evident Monaural rate-discrimination thresholds, using the same stimulation parameters, showed more substantial elevation than ITDs with increased rate ITD sensitivity with 6000 pps stimuli, amplitude-modulated at 100 Hz, was similar to that with unmodulated pulse trains at 100 pps, but at 200 and 300 Hz performance was poorer than with unmodulated signals Measures of sensitivity to binaural beats with unmodulated pulse-trains showed that all three subjects could use time-varying ITD cues at 100 pps, but not 300 pps, even though static ITD sensitivity was relatively unaffected over that range The difference between static and dynamic ITD thresholds is discussed in terms of relative contributions from initial and later arriving cues, which was further examined in an experiment using two-pulse stimuli as a function of interpulse separation In agreement with the binaural-beat data, findings from that experiment showed poor discrimination of ITDs on the second pulse when the interval between pulses was reduced to a few milliseconds

Richard van Hoesel

Papers

Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants

Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants.

Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user.

Effect of age at onset of deafness on binaural sensitivity in electric hearing in humans

Sensitivity to binaural timing in bilateral cochlear implant users.