Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: Comparing self-assessed and measured abilities

2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (8) ◽  
pp. 505-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Noble ◽  
Richard Tyler ◽  
Camille Dunn ◽  
Navjot Bhullar
Author(s):  
Marloes Sparreboom ◽  
Sebastián Ausili ◽  
Martijn J. H. Agterberg ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus

Purpose This study aimed to gain more insight into the primary auditory abilities of children with significant residual hearing in order to improve decision making when choosing between bimodal fitting or sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. Method Sound localization abilities, spatial release of masking, and fundamental frequency perception were tested. Nine children with bimodal fitting and seven children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants were included in the study. As a reference, 15 children with normal hearing and two children with simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants were included. Results On all outcome measures, the implanted children performed worse than the normal hearing children. For high-frequency localization, children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants performed significantly better than children with bimodal fitting. Compared to children with normal hearing, the left–right asymmetry in spatial release of masking was significant. When the implant was hindered by noise, bimodally fitted children obtained significantly lower spatial release of masking compared to when the hearing aid was hindered by noise. Overall, the larger the left–right asymmetry in spatial release of masking, the poorer the localization skills. No significant differences were found in fundamental frequency perception between the implant groups. Conclusions The data hint to an advantage of bilateral implantation over bimodal fitting. The extent of asymmetry in spatial release of masking is a promising tool for decision making when choosing whether to continue with the hearing aid or to provide a second cochlear implant in children with significant residual hearing.


2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (09) ◽  
pp. 760-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Amyn M. Amlani ◽  
Andi Seibold ◽  
Pamela L. Shattuck

A meta-analytic approach was used to examine sixteen peer-reviewed publications related to speech-recognition performance in noise at fixed signal-to-noise ratios for participants who use bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) or bimodal stimulation. Two hundred eighty-seven analyses were conducted to compare the underlying contributions of binaural summation, binaural squelch, and the head-shadow effect compared to monaural conditions (CI or hearing aid). The analyses revealed an overall significant effect for binaural summation, binaural squelch, and head shadow for the bilateral and bimodal listeners relative to monaural conditions. In addition, all within-condition (bilateral or bimodal) comparisons were significant for the three binaural effects, with the exception of the bimodal condition compared to a monaural CI. No significant differences were detected between the bilateral and bimodal listeners for any of the binaural phenomena. Clinical implications and recommendations are discussed as they relate to empirical findings. Se utilizó un enfoque de meta-análisis para examinar dieciséis publicaciones con revisión editorial relacionadas con el desempeño en reconocimiento del lenguaje en medio de ruido a tasas de señal-ruido fijas, para participantes que usaban implantes cocleares bilaterales (IC) o estimulación bimodal. Se condujeron doscientos ochenta y siete análisis para comparar la contribución subyacente de la sumación bi-auricular, el chapoteo bi-auricular, y el efecto de sombra de la cabeza, en comparación con las condiciones mono-auriculares (IC y auxiliar auditivo). El análisis reveló un efecto global significativo para la sumación bi-auricular, el chapoteo bi-auricular y la sombra de la cabeza para el sujeto con audición bilateral y bimodal, en relación con las condiciones monoauriculares. Además, todas las comparaciones dentro de la misma condición (bilateral o bimodal) fueron significativas para los tres efectos bi-auriculares, con la excepción de la condición bimodal, comparada con un IC monoauricular. No se detectaron diferencias significativas entre sujetos en condición bilateral y bimodal para ninguno de los fenómenos bi-auriculares. Las implicaciones clínicas y las recomendaciones se discuten en tanto se relacionan con los hallazgos empíricos.


ASHA Leader ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Litovsky

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-206
Author(s):  
Gennaro Auletta ◽  
Annamaria Franzè ◽  
Carla Laria ◽  
Carmine Piccolo ◽  
Carmine Papa ◽  
...  

Background: The aim of this study was to compare, in users of bimodal cochlear implants, the performance obtained using their own hearing aids (adjusted with the standard NAL-NL1 fitting formula) with the performance using the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aid adjusted with both NAL-NL1 and a new bimodal system (Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal (APDB)) developed by Advanced Bionics and Phonak Corporations. Methods: Eleven bimodal users (Naìda CI Q70 + contralateral hearing aid) were enrolled in our study. The users’ own hearing aids were replaced with the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power and fitted following the new formula. Speech intelligibility was assessed in quiet and noisy conditions, and comparisons were made with the results obtained with the users’ previous hearing aids and with the Naída Link hearing aids fitted with the NAL-NL1 generic prescription formula. Results: Using Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aids with the Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal fitting formula, performance was significantly better than that with the users’ own rehabilitation systems, especially in challenging hearing situations for all analyzed subjects. Conclusions: Speech intelligibility tests in quiet settings did not reveal a significant difference in performance between the new fitting formula and NAL-NL1 fittings (using the Naída Link hearing aids), whereas the performance difference between the two fittings was very significant in noisy test conditions.


2006 ◽  
Vol 45 (sup1) ◽  
pp. 78-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Y. Litovsky ◽  
Patti M. Johnstone ◽  
Shelly P. Godar

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Willem Beijen ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document