Criteria for Selecting an Optimal Device for the Contralateral Ear of Children with a Unilateral Cochlear Implant

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Wook Jeong ◽  
Min-Young Kang ◽  
Lee-Suk Kim
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Objective: To identify clinical criteria for selecting the aiding device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). Methods: Sixty-five children, including 36 bilateral CI users and 29 bimodal users, participated in the study. A speech perception test (monosyllabic word test) in noise was administered. The target speech (65 dB sound pressure level) was presented from the front loudspeaker, and noise (10 dB signal-to-noise ratio) was presented from 3 directions: from in front of the child and 90° to the child's right and left sides. The test was performed using the first CI alone and under bilateral CI or bimodal conditions. The bilateral benefits to speech perception in noise were compared between bilateral CI users and bimodal users. Results: Significant benefits in speech perception in noise were evident in bilateral CI users in all 3 noise conditions. In bimodal users, the hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz in the nonimplanted ear affected the bilateral benefit. Bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold ≤90 dB hearing level (HL) showed a significant bilateral benefit in various noise conditions. By contrast, bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL showed no significant bilateral benefits in all 3 noise conditions. Conclusions: Bilateral CI and bimodal listening provide better speech perception in noise than unilateral CI alone in children. The contralateral CI is better than bimodal listening for children with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL. A hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz may be a good criterion for deciding on the type of device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral CI.

scholarly journals Benefits of Localization and Speech Perception with Multiple Noise Sources in Listeners with a Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 044-051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Bruce Gantz ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Array Performance

Background: Research suggests that for individuals with significant low-frequency hearing, implantation of a short-electrode cochlear implant may provide benefits of improved speech perception abilities. Because this strategy combines acoustic and electrical hearing within the same ear while at the same time preserving low-frequency residual acoustic hearing in both ears, localization abilities may also be improved. However, very little research has focused on the localization and spatial hearing abilities of users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate localization abilities for listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant who continue to wear hearing aids in both ears. A secondary purpose was to document speech perception abilities using a speech-in-noise test with spatially separate noise sources. Research Design: Eleven subjects that utilized a short-electrode cochlear implant and bilateral hearing aids were tested on localization and speech perception with multiple noise locations using an eight-loudspeaker array. Performance was assessed across four listening conditions using various combinations of cochlear implant and/or hearing aid use. Results: Results for localization showed no significant difference between using bilateral hearing aids and bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant. However, there was a significant difference between the bilateral hearing aid condition and the implant plus use of a contralateral hearing aid for all 11 subjects. Results for speech perception showed a significant benefit when using bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant over use of the implant plus only one hearing aid. Conclusion: Combined use of both hearing aids and the cochlear implant show significant benefits for both localization and speech perception in noise for users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. These results emphasize the importance of low-frequency information in two ears for the purpose of localization and speech perception in noise.

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.

Optimizing Frequency-to-Electrode Allocation in Cochlear Implants

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (08) ◽  
pp. 574-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime R. Leigh ◽  
Katherine R. Henshall ◽  
Colette M. McKay
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Information Transmission ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Variable Effect ◽  
Filter Bandwidth

This study tested the hypothesis that speech perception of cochlear implant users could be improved by increasing the number of electrodes allocated to frequencies below 2.6 kHz, with correspondingly fewer electrodes allocated above this point. Eight users of the Nucleus CI22 implant participated and wore experimental maps in which the widths of the analysis filters were altered to provide either two or three extra low-frequency channels. Speech perception was tested following periods of take-home experience. Information transmission analysis of vowel and consonant confusions appear to support our hypothesis, showing that vowel first formant information was significantly better perceived with the experimental map and that consonant information was not significantly different. The results of CNC word testing appear to contradict this result, showing that the experimental map degraded both vowel and consonant perception. Overall, the experimental map had a small and variable effect on speech perception. These results do not support our hypothesis and indicate that further research is needed to investigate the possible effects of narrowing the filter bandwidth in low frequencies, as done in this experiment.

scholarly journals Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

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.

scholarly journals Speech Perception with two Monosyllabic Word Lists in Cochlear Implant Users: the CI 2004 Monosyllable Lists and 67-S Lists

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuke Matsuda ◽  
Takumi Okuda ◽  
Takahiro Nakashima ◽  
Miho Shirane ◽  
Shoken Shimoara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Word Lists

scholarly journals Neural Modulation Transmission Is a Marker for Speech Perception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Gransier ◽  
Robert Luke ◽  
Astrid van Wieringen ◽  
Jan Wouters
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Neural Modulation

scholarly journals Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users Compared on Speech Perception in Noise

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
William Noble ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Monika Kordus ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise

scholarly journals Aiding and Occluding the Contralateral Ear in Implanted Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (09) ◽  
pp. 567-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Runge ◽  
Jamie Jensen ◽  
David R. Friedland ◽  
Ruth Y. Litovsky ◽  
Sergey Tarima
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Predictive Variables ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Background: The challenges associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) are due primarily to temporal impairment and therefore tend to affect perception of low- to midfrequency sounds. A common treatment option for severe impairment in ANSD is cochlear implantation, and because the degree of impairment is unrelated to degree of hearing loss by audiometric thresholds, this population may have significant acoustic sensitivity in the contralateral ear. Clinically, the question arises as to how we should treat the contralateral ear in this population when there is acoustic hearing—should we plug it, amplify it, implant it, or leave it alone? Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of acute amplification and plugging of the contralateral ear compared to no intervention in implanted children with ANSD and aidable contralateral hearing. It was hypothesized that due to impaired temporal processing in ANSD, contralateral acoustic input would interfere with speech perception achieved with the cochlear implant (CI) alone; therefore, speech perception performance will decline with amplification and improve with occlusion. Research Design: Prospective within-subject comparison. Adaptive speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) for monosyllable and spondee word stimuli were measured in quiet and in noise for the intervention configurations. Study Sample: Nine children treated at the Medical College of Wisconsin Koss Cochlear Implant Program participated in the study. Inclusion criteria for this study were children diagnosed with ANSD who were unilaterally implanted, had aidable hearing in the contralateral ear (defined as a three-frequency pure-tone average of ≤80 dB HL), had at least 1 yr of cochlear implant experience, and were able to perform the speech perception task. Intervention: We compared SRT with the CI alone to SRTs with interventions of cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid (CI+HA) and cochlear implant with a contralateral earplug (CI+plug). Data Collection and Analysis: SRTs were measured and compared within subjects across listening conditions. Within-subject comparisons were analyzed using paired t-tests, and analyses of predictive variables for effects of contralateral intervention were analyzed using linear regression. Results: Contrary to the hypothesis, the bimodal CI+HA configuration showed a significant improvement in mean performance over the CI-alone configuration in quiet (p = .04). In noise, SRTs were obtained for six subjects, and no significant bimodal benefit was observed (p = .09). There were no consistent effects of occlusion observed across subjects and stimulus conditions. Degree of bimodal benefit showed a significant relationship with performance with the CI alone, with greater bimodal benefit associated with poorer CI-alone performance (p = .01). This finding, however, was limited by floor effects. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that children with ANSD who are experienced cochlear implant users may benefit from contralateral amplification, particularly for moderate cochlear implant performers. It is unclear from these data whether long-term contralateral hearing aid use in real-world situations would ultimately benefit this population; however, a hearing aid trial is recommended with assessment of bimodal benefit over time. These data may help inform clinical guidelines for determining optimal hearing configurations for unilaterally implanted children with ANSD, particularly when considering candidacy for sequential cochlear implantation.

Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users

2014 ◽  
Vol 316 ◽  
pp. 110-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Soshi ◽  
Satoko Hisanaga ◽  
Narihiro Kodama ◽  
Yori Kanekama ◽  
Yasuhiro Samejima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Related Potentials
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document