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 Auditory Speech Perception Development in Relation to Patient's Age with Cochlear Implant

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 206-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Ciscare ◽  
Erika Mantello ◽  
Carla Fortunato-Queiroz ◽  
Miguel Hyppolito ◽  
Ana Reis
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Auditory Thresholds ◽  
Caregiver Education ◽  
Auditory Speech ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Introduction A cochlear implant in adolescent patients with pre-lingual deafness is still a debatable issue. Objective The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the development of auditory speech perception in children with pre-lingual auditory impairment submitted to cochlear implant, in different age groups in the first year after implantation. Method This is a retrospective study, documentary research, in which we analyzed 78 reports of children with severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, unilateral cochlear implant users of both sexes. They were divided into three groups: G1, 22 infants aged less than 42 months; G2, 28 infants aged between 43 to 83 months; and G3, 28 older than 84 months. We collected medical record data to characterize the patients, auditory thresholds with cochlear implants, assessment of speech perception, and auditory skills. Results There was no statistical difference in the association of the results among groups G1, G2, and G3 with sex, caregiver education level, city of residence, and speech perception level. There was a moderate correlation between age and hearing aid use time, age and cochlear implants use time. There was a strong correlation between age and the age cochlear implants was performed, hearing aid use time and age CI was performed. Conclusion There was no statistical difference in the speech perception in relation to the patient's age when cochlear implant was performed. There were statistically significant differences for the variables of auditory deprivation time between G3 - G1 and G2 - G1 and hearing aid use time between G3 - G2 and G3 - G1.

Performance of Some of the Better Cochlear-Implant Patients

1989 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 887-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Brian C. J. Moore ◽  
Francis K. Kuk
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Scaling Analysis ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Environmental Sound ◽  
Sound Perception ◽  
Detection Thresholds ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Wide Range

The main purpose of this study was to provide an independent corroboration of open-set word recognition in some of the better cochlear-implant patients. These included the Chorimac, Nucleus (one group from the U.S.A. and one group from Hannover, Germany), Symbion, Duren/Cologne and 3M/Vienna implants. Three experiments are reported: (1) word recognition in word lists and in sentences; (2) environmental sound perception, and (3) gap detection. On word recognition, the scores of 6 Chorimac patients averaged 2.5% words and 0.7% words in sentences correct in the French tests. In the German tests, the scores averaged 17% words and 10% words in sentences for 10 Duren/Cologne patients, 15% words and 16% words in sentences for 9 3M/Vienna patients, and 10% words and 16% words in sentences (3% to 26%) for 10 Nucleus/Hannover patients. In the English tests, the scores averaged 11% words and 29.6% words in sentences for l0 Nucleus-U.S.A. patients, and 13.7% words and 35.7% words in sentences for the 9 Symbion patients. The ability to recognize recorded environmental sounds was measured with a closed set of 18 sounds. Performance averaged 23% correct for Chorimac patients, 41% correct for 3M/Vienna patients, 44% correct for Nucleus/Hannover patients, 21% correct for Duren/Cologne patients, 58% correct for Nucleus/U.S.A. patients, and 83% correct for Symbion patients. A multidimensional scaling analysis suggested that patients were, in part, utilizing information about the envelope and about the periodic/aperiodic nature of some of the sounds. Gap detection thresholds with a one-octave wide noise centered at 500 Hz varied widely among patients. Typically, patients with gap thresholds less than 40 ms showed a wide range of performance on speech perception tasks, whereas patients with gap-detection thresholds greater than 40 ms showed poor word recognition skills.

From Hearing with a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid (CI/HA) to Hearing with Two Cochlear Implants (CI/CI)

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 1682-1690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Luntz ◽  
Dana Egra-Dagan ◽  
Joseph Attias ◽  
Noam Yehudai ◽  
Tova Most ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aid

scholarly journals The Limitations of FDA Criteria: Inconsistencies with Clinical Practice, Findings, and Adult Criteria as a Barrier to Pediatric Implantation

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (04) ◽  
pp. 373-380
Author(s):  
Lisa R. Park ◽  
Erika B. Gagnon ◽  
Kevin D. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Residual Hearing ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Single Side ◽  
Hearing Children

AbstractChildren require greater access to sound than adults as they are learning to communicate using hearing and spoken language. Yet when it comes to cochlear implant candidacy, currently approved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria for adults are much less restrictive than those for children, allowing for greater levels of residual hearing and aided speech recognition in adults. Cochlear implant guidelines for children have changed very little in the 30 years since cochlear implants have been approved for pediatrics, and this lack of change has proven to be a barrier to implantation. Using evidence-based practice, centers have been providing off-label implantation for children who fall outside of current FDA criteria, including children with more residual hearing, children with single-side deafness younger than 5 years, and infants with bilateral profound loss younger than 9 months. The purpose of this article is to outline how these restrictions impede access to implants for children and describe the evidence supporting cochlear implantation in children who fall outside of current criteria.

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 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

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.

Examining the Relationship Between Speech Recognition and a Spectral–Temporal Test With a Mixed Group of Hearing Aid and Cochlear Implant Users

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 1073-1080
Author(s):  
Justin M. Aronoff ◽  
Leah Duitsman ◽  
Deanna K. Matusik ◽  
Senad Hussain ◽  
Elise Lippmann
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Mixed Group ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Audiology clinics have a need for a nonlinguistic test for assessing speech scores for patients using hearing aids or cochlear implants. One such test, the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test Lite for computeRless Measurement (SLRM), has been developed for use in clinics, but it, as well as the related Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test, has primarily been assessed with cochlear implant users. The main goal of this study was to examine the relationship between SLRM and the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test (AzBio) for a mixed group of hearing aid and cochlear implant users. Method Adult hearing aid users and cochlear implant users were tested with SLRM, AzBio in quiet, and AzBio in multitalker babble with a +8 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Results SLRM scores correlated with both AzBio recognition scores in quiet and in noise. Conclusions The results indicated that there is a significant relationship between SLRM and AzBio scores when testing a mixed group of cochlear implant and hearing aid users. This suggests that SLRM may be a useful nonlinguistic test for use with individuals with a variety of hearing devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document