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

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.

Amount of Frequency Compression in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users Is a Poor Predictor for Audibility and Spatial Hearing

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Snandan Sharma ◽  
Waldo Nogueira ◽  
A. John van Opstal ◽  
Josef Chalupper ◽  
Lucas H. M. Mens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Spatial Hearing ◽  
Meaningful Improvement ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Knee Point ◽  
Localization Performance

Purpose Speech understanding in noise and horizontal sound localization is poor in most cochlear implant (CI) users with a hearing aid (bimodal stimulation). This study investigated the effect of static and less-extreme adaptive frequency compression in hearing aids on spatial hearing. By means of frequency compression, we aimed to restore high-frequency audibility, and thus improve sound localization and spatial speech recognition. Method Sound-detection thresholds, sound localization, and spatial speech recognition were measured in eight bimodal CI users, with and without frequency compression. We tested two compression algorithms: a static algorithm, which compressed frequencies beyond the compression knee point (160 or 480 Hz), and an adaptive algorithm, which aimed to compress only consonants leaving vowels unaffected (adaptive knee-point frequencies from 736 to 2946 Hz). Results Compression yielded a strong audibility benefit (high-frequency thresholds improved by 40 and 24 dB for static and adaptive compression, respectively), no meaningful improvement in localization performance (errors remained > 30 deg), and spatial speech recognition across all participants. Localization biases without compression (toward the hearing-aid and implant side for low- and high-frequency sounds, respectively) disappeared or reversed with compression. The audibility benefits provided to each bimodal user partially explained any individual improvements in localization performance; shifts in bias; and, for six out of eight participants, benefits in spatial speech recognition. Conclusions We speculate that limiting factors such as a persistent hearing asymmetry and mismatch in spectral overlap prevent compression in bimodal users from improving sound localization. Therefore, the benefit in spatial release from masking by compression is likely due to a shift of attention to the ear with the better signal-to-noise ratio facilitated by compression, rather than an improved spatial selectivity. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16869485

Horizontal sound localization in cochlear implant users with a contralateral hearing aid

2016 ◽  
Vol 336 ◽  
pp. 72-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidwien C.E. Veugen ◽  
Maartje M.E. Hendrikse ◽  
Marc M. van Wanrooij ◽  
Martijn J.H. Agterberg ◽  
Josef Chalupper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid

scholarly journals Reducing the Device Delay Mismatch Can Improve Sound Localization in Bimodal Cochlear Implant/Hearing-Aid Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 233121651984387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Zirn ◽  
Julian Angermeier ◽  
Susan Arndt ◽  
Antje Aschendorff ◽  
Thomas Wesarg
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Delay Line ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Interaural Time Differences ◽  
Localization Accuracy ◽  
Everyday Situation ◽  
Acclimatization Period ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Line P

In users of a cochlear implant (CI) together with a contralateral hearing aid (HA), so-called bimodal listeners, differences in processing latencies between digital HA and CI up to 9 ms constantly superimpose interaural time differences. In the present study, the effect of this device delay mismatch on sound localization accuracy was investigated. For this purpose, localization accuracy in the frontal horizontal plane was measured with the original and minimized device delay mismatch. The reduction was achieved by delaying the CI stimulation according to the delay of the individually worn HA. For this, a portable, programmable, battery-powered delay line based on a ring buffer running on a microcontroller was designed and assembled. After an acclimatization period to the delayed CI stimulation of 1 hr, the nine bimodal study participants showed a highly significant improvement in localization accuracy of 11.6% compared with the everyday situation without the delay line ( p < .01). Concluding, delaying CI stimulation to minimize the device delay mismatch seems to be a promising method to increase sound localization accuracy in bimodal listeners.

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.

Sound Localization Acuity in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss Who Wear a Hearing Aid in the Impaired Ear

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (08) ◽  
pp. 522-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patti M. Johnstone ◽  
Anna K. Náblek ◽  
Velma S. Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Older Children

Background: Disrupted binaural hearing is thought to contribute in part to the academic, social, and communication problems often associated with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in childhood. It is not known, however, if putting a hearing aid in the impaired ear of a child with UHL will lead to bilateral or binaural benefit. This study seeks to utilize sound localization acuity measurements to assess hearing aid amplification efficacy in children with UHL. Purpose: To measure sound localization ability in children with UHL who use a hearing aid in the impaired ear to determine the extent to which amplification, age, early intervention, and degree of hearing loss affects localization acuity. Research Design: A within-subjects experimental design using repeated measures is used to determine the effect of amplification on localization acuity in children with UHL. A between-subjects experimental design is used to compare localization acuity between children with UHL and age-matched controls with normal hearing. Study Sample: Twelve children with UHL who used a hearing aid in the impaired ear and 12 age-matched controls with normal hearing. Children with UHL were divided into two groups based on degree of hearing loss. Children in both groups were divided into two age groups: older children (10–14 yr) and younger children (6–9 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: All testing was done in a sound-treated booth with a horizontal array of 15 loudspeakers (radius of 1 m). The stimulus was a spondee word, “baseball”: the level averaged 60 dB SPL and randomly roved (±8 dB). Each child was asked to identify the location of a sound source. Results: In the experimental study a significant interaction was found between hearing aid amplification and child age. A hearing aid significantly improved localization acuity in younger children with UHL and significantly impaired localization acuity in older children. A significant correlation was found between age at intervention and localization bilateral benefit. Children who were fit earlier showed bilateral benefit whereas children who were fit later showed bilateral interference. Development, however, may play a role in sound localization acuity. When unaided, older children had significantly better localization acuity than younger children with UHL. Conclusions: A hearing aid can provide bilateral localization benefit to some children with UHL. Early intervention may increase the likelihood of bilateral benefit. However, developmental factors appear to play a role in improving localization abilities over time for children with UHL. Nonetheless, without a means of establishing bilateral benefit with hearing aid amplification, localization performance in children with UHL will rarely equal that of peers.

Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: A 6-month comparative study

2005 ◽  
Vol 125 (6) ◽  
pp. 596-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Morera ◽  
M. Manrique ◽  
A. Ramos ◽  
L. Garcia-Ibanez ◽  
L. Cavalle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Bimodal Stimulation

scholarly journals Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: selection criteria for second ear surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-19
Author(s):  
Nikolai A. Daikhes ◽  
Anna V. Balakina ◽  
Anton S. Machalov ◽  
Aleksandr O. Kuznetsov ◽  
Elena N. Zueva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Ear Surgery

Objectives to develop a safe and effective way of qualifying children for a second device cochlear implantation. Material and methods. There were 50 children from two to twelve years old after unilateral cochlear implantation under our observation. During qualification, the following criteria were taken into account: audiometry results, use of the hearing aid in the non-implanted ear and benefit of the device, speech and hearing development after the first cochlear implantation. Results. According to our findings the second cochlear implantation was recommended for 12 (24%) patients; in 16 (32%) cases the second cochlear implantation was refused; in 22 (44%) cases it was recommended to postpone implantation of the second device. Conclusion. Our results demonstrate that the safe and effective way of qualifying for a second cochlear implant can restore binaural hearing that is crucial for the child's speech and hearing development and enhance integration into a world of peers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document