Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear Implant Sound-Localization Behavior With Multiple Concurrent Sources

Spatial hearing is crucial in real life but deteriorates in participants with severe sensorineural hearing loss or single-sided deafness. This ability can potentially be improved with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). The present study investigated measures of sound localization in participants with single-sided deafness provided with a CI. Sound localization was measured separately at eight loudspeaker positions (4°, 30°, 60°, and 90°) on the CI side and on the normal-hearing side. Low- and high-frequency noise bursts were used in the tests to investigate possible differences in the processing of interaural time and level differences. Data were compared to normal-hearing adults aged between 20 and 83. In addition, the benefit of the CI in speech understanding in noise was compared to the localization ability. Fifteen out of 18 participants were able to localize signals on the CI side and on the normal-hearing side, although performance was highly variable across participants. Three participants always pointed to the normal-hearing side, irrespective of the location of the signal. The comparison with control data showed that participants had particular difficulties localizing sounds at frontal locations and on the CI side. In contrast to most previous results, participants were able to localize low-frequency signals, although they localized high-frequency signals more accurately. Speech understanding in noise was better with the CI compared to testing without CI, but only at a position where the CI also improved sound localization. Our data suggest that a CI can, to a large extent, restore localization in participants with single-sided deafness. Difficulties may remain at frontal locations and on the CI side. However, speech understanding in noise improves when wearing the CI. The treatment with a CI in these participants might provide real-world benefits, such as improved orientation in traffic and speech understanding in difficult listening situations.

Download Full-text

Impact of Reverberation on Speech Perception and Sound Localization Accuracy in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

Otology & Neurotology ◽

10.1097/mao.0000000000003335 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽

Author(s):

Monika Körtje ◽

Anja Eichenauer ◽

Timo Stöver ◽

Uwe Baumann ◽

Tobias Weissgerber

Keyword(s):

Speech Perception ◽

Cochlear Implant ◽

Sound Localization ◽

Localization Accuracy ◽

Single Sided Deafness

Download Full-text

Benefit of a Contralateral Routing of Signal Device for Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Audiology and Neurotology ◽

10.1159/000363212 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 73-80 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Stefan Weder ◽

Martin Kompis ◽

Marco Caversaccio ◽

Christof Stieger

Keyword(s):

Cochlear Implant ◽

Sound Localization ◽

Subjective Effects ◽

Noisy Environment ◽

Profound Hearing Loss ◽

Mean Values ◽

Speech In Noise ◽

Single Sided Deafness ◽

A Minor ◽

Signal Sources

Objective: To investigate objective and subjective effects of an adjunctive contralateral routing of signal (CROS) device at the untreated ear in patients with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). Design: Prospective study of 10 adult experienced unilateral CI users with bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss. Speech in noise reception (SNR) and sound localization were measured with and without the additional CROS device. SNR was measured by applying speech signals at the untreated/CROS side while noise signals came from the front (S90N0). For S0N90, signal sources were switched. Sound localization was measured in a 12-loudspeaker full circle setup. To evaluate the subjective benefit, patients tried the device for 2 weeks at home, then filled out the abbreviated Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale as well as the Bern benefit in single-sided deafness questionnaires. Results: In the setting S90N0, all patients showed a highly significant SNR improvement when wearing the additional CROS device (mean 6.4 dB, p < 0.001). In the unfavorable setting S0N90, only a minor deterioration of speech understanding was noted (mean -0.66 dB, p = 0.54). Sound localization did not improve substantially with CROS. In the two questionnaires, 12 of 14 items showed an improvement in mean values, but none of them was statistically significant. Conclusion: Patients with unilateral CI benefit from a contralateral CROS device, particularly in a noisy environment, when speech comes from the CROS ear side. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Download Full-text

Benefits of Binaural Integration in Cochlear Implant Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and Residual Hearing in the Implanted Ear

Life ◽

10.3390/life11030265 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 265

Author(s):

Artur Lorens ◽

Anita Obrycka ◽

Piotr Henryk Skarzynski ◽

Henryk Skarzynski

Keyword(s):

Cochlear Implant ◽

Sound Localization ◽

Low Frequency ◽

Hearing Preservation ◽

Residual Hearing ◽

Low Frequencies ◽

Monosyllabic Words ◽

Localization Ability ◽

Single Sided Deafness ◽

Spatial Locations

The purpose of the study is to gauge the benefits of binaural integration effects (redundancy and squelch) due to preserved low-frequency residual hearing in the implanted ear of cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness. There were 11 cochlear implant users (age 18–61 years old) who had preserved low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear; they had a normal hearing or mild hearing loss in the contralateral ear. Patients were tested with monosyllabic words, under different spatial locations of speech and noise and with the cochlear implant activated and deactivated, in two listening configurations—one in which low frequencies in the implanted ear were masked and another in which they were unmasked. We also investigated how cochlear implant benefit due to binaural integration depended on unaided sound localization ability. Patients benefited from the binaural integration effects of redundancy and squelch only in the unmasked condition. Pearson correlations between binaural integration effects and unaided sound localization error showed significance only for squelch (r = −0.67; p = 0.02). Hearing preservation after cochlear implantation has considerable benefits because the preserved low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear contributes to binaural integration, presumably through the preserved temporal fine structure.

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

Effect of Tinnitus and Duration of Deafness on Sound Localization and Speech Recognition in Noise in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness

Trends in Hearing ◽

10.1177/2331216518813802 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 22 ◽

pp. 233121651881380 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Yang-Wenyi Liu ◽

Xiaoting Cheng ◽

Bing Chen ◽

Kevin Peng ◽

Akira Ishiyama ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Speech Recognition ◽

Sound Localization ◽

Single Sided Deafness ◽

Speech Recognition In Noise

Download Full-text

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

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/2018_aja-18-0067 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text