Bimodal Programming: A Survey of Current Clinical Practice

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah W. Siburt ◽  
Alice E. Holmes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The United States ◽  
Clinical Approach ◽  
Current Clinical Practice ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the current clinical practice in approaches to bimodal programming in the United States. To be specific, if clinicians are recommending bimodal stimulation, who programs the hearing aid in the bimodal condition, and what method is used for programming the hearing aid? Method An 11-question online survey was created and sent via email to a comprehensive list of cochlear implant programming centers in the United States. The survey was sent to 360 recipients. Results Respondents in this study represented a diverse group of clinical settings (response rate: 26%). Results indicate little agreement about who programs the hearing aids, when they are programmed, and how they are programmed in the bimodal condition. Analysis of small versus large implant centers indicated small centers are less likely to add a device to the contralateral ear. Conclusions Although a growing number of cochlear implant recipients choose to wear a hearing aid on the contralateral ear, there is inconsistency in the current clinical approach to bimodal programming. These survey results provide evidence of large variability in the current bimodal programming practices and indicate a need for more structured clinical recommendations and programming approaches.

The CRIT Study: Anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill—Current clinical practice in the United States*

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard L. Corwin ◽  
Andrew Gettinger ◽  
Ronald G. Pearl ◽  
Mitchell P. Fink ◽  
Mitchell M. Levy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Clinical Practice

Pediatric Myocardial Protection in the United States: A Survey of Current Clinical Practice

1992 ◽  
Vol 40 (04) ◽  
pp. 214-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Bilfinger ◽  
J. Moeller ◽  
M. Kurusz ◽  
R. Grimson ◽  
C. Anagnostopoulos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Myocardial Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Clinical Practice

A survey of current clinical practice of permanent prostate brachytherapy in the United States

1998 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 461-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley R. Prestidge ◽  
James J. Prete ◽  
Thomas A. Buchholz ◽  
Jay L. Friedland ◽  
Richard G. Stock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prostate Brachytherapy ◽  
Current Clinical Practice

scholarly journals Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Fowler ◽  
Jessica L. Eggleston ◽  
Kelly M. Reavis ◽  
Garnett P. McMillan ◽  
Lina A. J. Reiss
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Cutoff Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Frequency Information ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

PurposeThe objective was to determine whether speech perception could be improved for bimodal listeners (those using a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and hearing aid in the contralateral ear) by removing low-frequency information provided by the CI, thereby reducing acoustic–electric overlap.MethodSubjects were adult CI subjects with at least 1 year of CI experience. Nine subjects were evaluated in the CI-only condition (control condition), and 26 subjects were evaluated in the bimodal condition. CIs were programmed with 4 experimental programs in which the low cutoff frequency (LCF) was progressively raised. Speech perception was evaluated using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words in quiet, AzBio sentences in background babble, and spondee words in background babble.ResultsThe CI-only group showed decreased speech perception in both quiet and noise as the LCF was raised. Bimodal subjects with better hearing in the hearing aid ear (< 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed best for words in quiet as the LCF was raised. In contrast, bimodal subjects with worse hearing (> 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed similarly to the CI-only group.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that reducing low-frequency overlap of the CI and contralateral hearing aid may improve performance in quiet for some bimodal listeners with better hearing.

Reduction in High-Frequency Hearing Aid Gain Can Improve Performance in Patients With Contralateral Cochlear Implant: A Pilot Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J. Messersmith ◽  
Lindsey E. Jorgensen ◽  
Jessica A. Hagg
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Clinic Population

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether an alternate fitting strategy, specifically adjustment to gains in a hearing aid (HA), would improve performance in patients who experienced poorer performance in the bimodal condition when the HA was fit to traditional targets. Method This study was a retrospective chart review from a local clinic population seen during a 6-month period. Participants included 6 users of bimodal stimulation. Two performed poorer in the cochlear implant (CI) + HA condition than in the CI-only condition. One individual performed higher in the bimodal condition, but the overall performance was low. Three age range–matched users whose performance increased when the HA was used in conjunction with a CI were also included. The HA gain was reduced beyond 2000 Hz. Speech perception scores were obtained pre- and postmodification to the HA fitting. Results All listeners whose HA was programmed using the modified approach demonstrated improved speech perception scores with the modified HA fit in the bimodal condition when compared with the traditional HA fit in the bimodal condition. Conclusion Modifications to gains above 2000 Hz in the HA may improve performance for bimodal listeners who perform more poorly in the bimodal condition when the HA is fit to traditional targets.

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
Fitting Procedures ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit.MethodThis prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study.ResultsNo differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization.ConclusionOur results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document