The impact of cochlear implant microphone settings on the binaural hearing of experienced cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

Abstract Objective Cochlear implantation has become a well-accepted treatment option for people with single-sided deafness (SSD) and has become a clinical standard in many countries. A cochlear implant (CI) is the only device which restores binaural hearing. The effect of microphone directionality (MD) settings has been investigated in other CI indication groups, but its impact on speech perception in noise has not been established in CI users with SSD. The focus of this investigation was, therefore, to assess binaural hearing effects using different MD settings in CI users with SSD. Methods Twenty-nine experienced CI users with SSD were recruited to determine speech reception thresholds with varying target and noise sources to define binaural effects (head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking), sound localization, and sound quality using the SSQ12 and HISQUI19 questionnaires. Outcome measures included the MD settings “natural”, “adaptive”, and “omnidirectional”. Results The 29 participants involved in the study were divided into two groups: 11 SONNET users and 18 OPUS 2/RONDO users. In both groups, a significant head shadow effect of 7.4–9.2 dB was achieved with the CI. The MD setting “adaptive” provided a significant head shadow effect of 9.2 dB, a squelch effect of 0.9 dB, and spatial release from masking of 7.6 dB in the SONNET group. No significant summation effect could be determined in either group with CI. Outcomes with the omnidirectional setting were not significantly different between groups. For both groups, localization improved significantly when the CI was activated and was best when the omnidirectional setting was used. The groups’ sound quality scores did not significantly differ. Conclusions Adaptive directional microphone settings improve speech perception and binaural hearing abilities in CI users with SSD. Binaural effect measures are valuable to quantify the benefit of CI use, especially in this indication group.

Download Full-text

Speech Recognition With Informational and Energetic Maskers in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness After Cochlear Implantation

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2021_jslhr-20-00677 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-14

Author(s):

Verena Müller ◽

Ruth Lang-Roth

Keyword(s):

Speech Recognition ◽

Cochlear Implant ◽

Cochlear Implantation ◽

Informational Masking ◽

Slight Improvement ◽

Spatial Release ◽

Contralateral Ear ◽

Release From Masking ◽

Single Sided Deafness ◽

Competing Speech

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess the susceptibility to energetic and informational masking in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) with one normal-hearing (NH) ear and a cochlear implant (CI) in the contralateral ear, understand the effect on speech recognition when spatially separating noise and speech maskers, and investigate the influence of the CI in situations with energetic and informational masking. Method Speech recognition was measured in the presence of either a modulated speech-shaped noise or one of two competing speech maskers in 11 SSD-CI listeners. The speech maskers were manipulated with respect to fundamental frequency to consider the effect of different voices. Measurements were conducted in the unaided (NH) and aided (NHCI) conditions. Spatial release from masking (SRM) was calculated for each masker type and both listening conditions (NH and NHCI) by subtracting scores of the colocated target and masker condition (S 0 N 0 ) from the spatially separated target and masker conditions (S 0 N ≠0 ). Results Speech recognition was highly variable depending on the type of masker. SRM occurred in the unaided (NH) and aided (NHCI) conditions when the speech masker had the same gender as the target talker. Adding the CI improved speech recognition when this speech masker was ipsilateral to the NH ear. Conclusions The amount of informational masking is substantial in SSD-CI listeners with both colocated and spatially separated target and masker signals. The contribution of SRM to better speech recognition largely depends on the masker and is considerable when no differences in voices between the target and the competing talker occur. There is only a slight improvement in speech recognition by adding the CI.

Download Full-text

Correction to: The impact of cochlear implant microphone settings on the binaural hearing of experienced cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology ◽

10.1007/s00405-021-06619-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Anja Kurz ◽

Maren Zanzinger ◽

Rudolf Hagen ◽

Kristen Rak

Keyword(s):

Cochlear Implant ◽

Binaural Hearing ◽

Original Publication ◽

Single Sided Deafness ◽

The Impact

In the original publication of the article, under the section Binaural effects, the following sentence.

Download Full-text

Spatial Release From Masking in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients With Single-Sided Deafness

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/2020_aja-20-00119 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Lisa R. Park ◽

Margaret T. Dillon ◽

Emily Buss ◽

Brendan P. O'Connell ◽

Kevin D. Brown

Keyword(s):

Speech Recognition ◽

Cochlear Implant ◽

Cochlear Implantation ◽

Repeated Measures ◽

Case Reports ◽

Recognition Task ◽

Normal Hearing ◽

Spatial Release ◽

Release From Masking ◽

Single Sided Deafness

Purpose Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) experience difficulty understanding speech in multisource listening situations. Case reports and retrospective studies have indicated that a cochlear implant (CI) may improve masked speech recognition in children with SSD. This prospective study was conducted to determine whether providing a CI to children with SSD supports spatial release from masking (SRM), an improvement in speech recognition associated with separating the target and masker sources. Method Twenty children with at least a moderate-to-profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear underwent cochlear implantation. The average age of implantation was 5.5 years (range: 3.5–12.7). After 12 months of CI use, subjects completed a sentence recognition task in multitalker masker with and without the CI. The target was presented from the front, and the masker was either colocated with the target (0°) or from the side (+90° or −90°). A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was completed to investigate SRM with and without the CI. Results Pediatric CI recipients experienced significant SRM when the masker was directed to the normal-hearing ear or to the affected ear. Conclusions The results indicate that cochlear implantation in children with SSD supports binaural skills required for speech recognition in noise. These results are consistent with improved functional communication in multisource environments, like classrooms.

Download Full-text

Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology ◽

10.1007/s00405-021-06634-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Till F. Jakob ◽

Iva Speck ◽

Ann-Kathrin Rauch ◽

Frederike Hassepass ◽

Manuel C. Ketterer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Speech Perception ◽

Cochlear Implant ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Speech Perception In Noise ◽

Sound Localisation ◽

Therapy Option ◽

Single Sided Deafness ◽

Objective Hearing Tests

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Methods Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. Results 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. Conclusion The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

Download Full-text