Trials of a Contralateral Hearing Aid After Long-Term Unilateral Cochlear Implant Use in Early-Onset Deafness

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Gottermeier ◽  
Carol De Filippo ◽  
Catherine Clark
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Deaf Adults ◽  
Listening Ability ◽  
Difficult Situations ◽  
Prelingually Deaf

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the practicability of binaural hearing by adding a contralateral hearing aid (HA) after long-term cochlear implant (CI) use in prelingually deaf adults.MethodFive individuals with 1 CI volunteered for a 3-week bimodal (CI + HA) trial. HA gain was set low until sound was tolerable, then increased as listeners acclimated. Participants logged their daily listening experiences and were closely monitored by the audiologist. Measures included pre- and posttrial consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word and phoneme scores and self-reports of satisfaction and listening ability in difficult situations.ResultsAcoustic stimulation was initially unpleasant, but approached comfort at target gain within the 3-week period. Benefit was demonstrated in continued voluntary HA use and higher bimodal phoneme scores compared to CI alone (8%–31% increases) for 4 of the participants.ConclusionsWhen a second CI is not a consideration, a contralateral HA should be pursued as the standard of care for prelingually deaf adults despite substantial auditory deprivation in the previously unaided ear, unpleasant sensations at initial HA fit, or lack of dramatic objective test gains. Frequent audiologist contact, repeated HA adjustments, and client journals are valuable in promoting favorable outcomes with bimodal hearing (adaptation, acceptance, and benefit) for this population.

Cochlear Implant Nonuse: Insight from Deaf Adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-282
Author(s):  
Maryam Salehomoum
Keyword(s):  
Identity Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Perceptual Development ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Deaf Identity ◽  
Deaf Adults ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract Research examining the outcome of pediatric cochlear implantation consists of certain limitations, including the use of assessments that are often restricted to auditory-spoken skills, biased recruitment practices, and lack of consideration for identity development. To better understand the long-term outcome of implantation, it is vital to seek out individuals who decide to stop using their device and elicit feedback related to their decision. Thus, 11 adults, who were past cochlear implant (CI) users, were interviewed to gain insight into factors that had led to their decision regarding cochlear implant nonuse. Results indicated several variables to have played a role, but the most prominent factors were limitations in postimplant auditory perceptual development and development of a d/Deaf identity. Although cochlear implant practices and technology have improved over the past few decades, we need to recognize the continued variability in outcome to ensure the provision of the most accurate information and appropriate services.

scholarly journals An introductory overview of bimodal fitting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahdieh Hasanalifard ◽  
Younes Lotfi ◽  
Abdollah Moossavi
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Residual Hearing ◽  
Sound Perception ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Musical Perception ◽  
Introductory Overview ◽  
Wide Range

Background and Aim: In a bimodal fitting, one ear is stimulated acoustically with a hearing aid and the other is stimulated electrically with a cochlear implant. This paper provides a brief summary of the concept of bimodal fitting, binaural hearing and its importance, the hearing benefits of binaural hearing in bimodal fitting, candidacy and hearing aid adjustment in bimodal fitting cases. Recent Findings: Researches have shown that bimodal fitting offers a wide range of hearing benefits over unilateral cochlear implants, such as better speech perception in noise, better musical perception, and a better understanding of pitch and tone perception and naturalness of sound perception. Conclusion: Considering the binaural hearing advantages in bimodal fitting users, it can be concluded that users of unilateral cochlear implants who have measurable residual hearing in their non-implanted ear can use a hearing aid in that ear and enjoy binaural hearing advantages. The hearing aid should be fitted in a way to complement the information obtained through cochlear implantation. Keywords: Bimodal fitting; cochlear implant; binaural hearing

scholarly journals Bimodal Hearing in Individuals with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: Benefits, Challenges, and Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (04) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Dunbar ◽  
Sarah Warren
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Outcomes Measures ◽  
Spatial Sound ◽  
Integration Management ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

AbstractBinaural hearing offers numerous advantages over monaural hearing. While bilateral implants are a successful treatment option for some patients, many individuals choose to achieve binaural hearing by using a cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid. Compared with monaural hearing, benefits of bimodal hearing include improved speech perception in quiet and in noise, improved localization, and more natural sound quality. Despite the advantages, there exist disadvantages to bimodal hearing, primarily related to binaural integration. Management of these devices can be challenging in that the hearing aid and cochlear implant may be managed by different clinicians. When fitting devices, strategies are recommended to optimize the integration of input from both devices. In managing bimodal devices, recommended outcomes measures include those that would reflect bimodal benefit, such as speech understanding in noise and spatial sound quality perception.

scholarly journals Current Research with Cochlear Implants at Arizona State University

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (06) ◽  
pp. 385-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Dorman ◽  
Anthony Spahr ◽  
Rene H. Gifford ◽  
Sarah Cook ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
State University ◽  
Arizona State University ◽  
Listening Environments

In this article we review, and discuss the clinical implications of, five projects currently underway in the Cochlear Implant Laboratory at Arizona State University. The projects are (1) norming the AzBio sentence test, (2) comparing the performance of bilateral and bimodal cochlear implant (CI) patients in realistic listening environments, (3) accounting for the benefit provided to bimodal patients by low-frequency acoustic stimulation, (4) assessing localization by bilateral hearing aid patients and the implications of that work for hearing preservation patients, and (5) studying heart rate variability as a possible measure for quantifying the stress of listening via an implant.The long-term goals of the laboratory are to improve the performance of patients fit with cochlear implants and to understand the mechanisms, physiological or electronic, that underlie changes in performance. We began our work with cochlear implant patients in the mid-1980s and received our first grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for work with implanted patients in 1989. Since that date our work with cochlear implant patients has been funded continuously by the NIH. In this report we describe some of the research currently being conducted in our laboratory.

Sound Localization and Binaural Hearing in Children with a Hearing Aid and a Cochlear Implant

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Beijen ◽  
A.F.M. Snik ◽  
L.V. Straatman ◽  
E.A.M. Mylanus ◽  
L.H.M. Mens
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing

Postlingually Deaf Adults of All Ages Derive Equal Benefits from Unilateral Multichannel Cochlear Implant

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 637-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Park ◽  
David B. Shipp ◽  
Joseph M. Chen ◽  
Julian M. Nedzelski ◽  
Vincent Y.W. Lin
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Perceived Quality Of Life ◽  
Deaf Adults

Background: Controversy still exists regarding the impact of age on speech recognition following cochlear implant in postlingually deaf adults. In some studies elderly recipients did not perform as well as younger patients on standard speech recognition tests. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that cochlear implantation improves quality of life, as measured by self-administered questionnaires, but the sample sizes of these studies have been relatively small, thus making age stratification a challenge. Purpose: The primary objective was to assess whether the age at which a patient receives a unilateral cochlear implant affects improvements in speech recognition scores and perceived quality of life. A secondary objective was to determine whether preoperative use of hearing aids correlates with improvement in speech recognition and perceived quality of life after cochlear implantation. Research Design: A retrospective study in a tertiary referral center. Patients: A total of 161 postlingually deaf adults, who were divided based on age (<50, 50–65, >65) and on prior hearing aid(s) use. Intervention: All patients received a unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition was quantified by percent correct scores on the Hearing in Noise Test sentences delivered in a quiet setting only (HINT%), and quality of life was quantified by the Hearing Handicap Inventory (HHI) before and 1 yr after cochlear implantation. Results: Speech recognition, as measured by HINT%, improved significantly and to similar extents in all three age groups following cochlear implantation. Similarly, quality of life as quantified by HHI improved markedly and to similar extents in all age groups. Whether hearing aids were used pre-implant, or whether the cochlear implant (CI) was implanted on the same side or contralateral to the hearing aid side, had no substantial effect on the patients’ performances on either speech recognition or quality of life. Moreover, there were no statistically significant correlations between pre-implant speech recognition scores and pre-implant quality of life scores or between postimplant speech recognition scores and postimplant quality of life scores. Conclusion: The findings of the present study demonstrate that cochlear implantation improves HINT% and HHI scores to similar extents across all age groups. This finding suggests that elderly patients may derive speech recognition and quality of life benefits similar to those of younger patients and that age should not be an essential factor in the determination of CI candidacy. Furthermore, prior use of a hearing aid, and its location in relation to the cochlear implant, does not influence the extent of improvement in speech recognition or quality of life measurements following cochlear implantation.

Heterogeneity of MYO15A variants significantly determine the feasibility of acoustic stimulation with hearing aid and cochlear implant

2021 ◽  
pp. 108227
Author(s):  
Gina Na ◽  
Hye Ji Choi ◽  
Sun Young Joo ◽  
John Hoon Rim ◽  
Jung Ah Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation

scholarly journals The Perception of Regional Dialects and Foreign Accents by Cochlear Implant Users

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 683-690
Author(s):  
Terrin N. Tamati ◽  
David B. Pisoni ◽  
Aaron C. Moberly
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
The United States ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Rating Task ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Regional Dialects ◽  
Foreign Accents ◽  
Regional Dialect ◽  
Prelingually Deaf

Purpose This preliminary research examined (a) the perception of two common sources of indexical variability in speech—regional dialects and foreign accents, and (b) the relation between indexical processing and sentence recognition among prelingually deaf, long-term cochlear implant (CI) users and normal-hearing (NH) peers. Method Forty-three prelingually deaf adolescent and adult CI users and 44 NH peers completed a regional dialect categorization task, which consisted of identifying the region of origin of an unfamiliar talker from six dialect regions of the United States. They also completed an intelligibility rating task, which consisted of rating the intelligibility of short sentences produced by native and nonnative (foreign-accented) speakers of American English on a scale from 1 ( not intelligible at all ) to 7 ( very intelligible ). Individual performance was compared to demographic factors and sentence recognition scores. Results Both CI and NH groups demonstrated difficulty with regional dialect categorization, but NH listeners significantly outperformed the CI users. In the intelligibility rating task, both CI and NH listeners rated foreign-accented sentences as less intelligible than native sentences; however, CI users perceived smaller differences in intelligibility between native and foreign-accented sentences. Sensitivity to accent differences was related to sentence recognition accuracy in CI users. Conclusions Prelingually deaf, long-term CI users are sensitive to accent variability in speech, but less so than NH peers. Additionally, individual differences in CI users' sensitivity to indexical variability was related to sentence recognition abilities, suggesting a common source of difficulty in the perception and encoding of fine acoustic–phonetic details in speech.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document