Sensitivity to binaural temporal-envelope beats with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant as a measure of tonotopic match (L)

Postoperative optimization of cochlear implantation for single sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of methods for improving postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing performance in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed, Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and narrative synthesis. English language studies of adult CI recipients with SSD and AHL reporting a postoperative intervention and comparative audiometric data pertaining to speech in noise, speech in quiet and sound localization were included.

RESULTS

32 studies met criteria for full text review and 6 (n = 81) met final inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as: formal auditory training, programming techniques, or hardware optimization. Formal auditory training (n = 10) found no objective improvement in hearing outcomes. Experimental CI maps did not improve audiologic outcomes (n = 9). Programed CI signal delays to improve synchronization demonstrated improved sound localization (n = 12). Hardware optimization, including multidirectional (n = 29) and remote (n = 11) microphones, improved sound localization and speech in noise, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Few studies meeting inclusion criteria and small sample sizes highlight the need for further study. Formal auditory training did not appear to improve hearing outcomes. Programming techniques, such as CI signal delay, and hardware optimization, such as multidirectional and remote microphones, show promise to improve outcomes for SSD and AHL CI users.

Sound Source Localization by Cochlear Implant Recipients with Normal Hearing in the Contralateral Ear: Effects of Spectral Content and Duration of Listening Experience

INTRODUCTION

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with normal hearing (NH) in the contralateral ear experience a significant improvement in sound source localization when listening with the CI in combination with their NH-ear (CI + NH) as compared to with the NH-ear alone. The improvement in localization is primarily due to sensitivity to interaural level differences (ILDs). Sensitivity to interaural timing differences (ITDs) may be limited by auditory aging, frequency-to-place mismatches, the signal coding strategy, and duration of CI use. The present report assessed the sensitivity of ILD and ITD cues in CI + NH listeners who were recipients of long electrode arrays that provide minimal frequency-to-place mismatches and were mapped with a coding strategy that presents fine structure cues on apical channels.

METHODS

Sensitivity to ILDs and ITDs for localization was assessed using broadband noise (BBN), as well as high-pass (HP) and low-pass (LP) filtered noise for adult CI + NH listeners. Stimuli were 200-ms noise bursts presented from 11 speakers spaced evenly over an 180° arc. Performance was quantified in root-mean-squared error and response patterns were analyzed to evaluate the consistency, accuracy, and side bias of the responses. Fifteen listeners completed the task at the 2-year post-activation visit; seven listeners repeated the task at a later annual visit.

RESULTS

Performance at the 2-year visit was best with the BBN and HP stimuli and poorer with the LP stimulus. Responses to the BBN and HP stimuli were significantly correlated, consistent with the idea that CI + NH listeners primarily use ILD cues for localization. For the LP stimulus, some listeners responded consistently and accurately and with limited side bias, which may indicate sensitivity to ITD cues. Two of the 7 listeners who repeated the task at a later annual visit experienced a significant improvement in performance with the LP stimulus, which may indicate that sensitivity to ITD cues may improve with long-term CI use.

CONCLUSIONS

CI recipients with a NH-ear primarily use ILD cues for sound source localization, though some may use ITD cues as well. Sensitivity to ITD cues may improve with long-term CI listening experience.

No Benefit of Deriving Cochlear-Implant Maps From Binaural Temporal-Envelope Sensitivity for Speech Perception or Spatial Hearing Under Single-Sided Deafness

OBJECTIVES

This study tested whether speech perception and spatial acuity improved in people with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant (SSD+CI) when the frequency allocation table (FAT) of the CI was adjusted to optimize frequency-dependent sensitivity to binaural disparities.

DESIGN

Nine SSD+CI listeners with at least 6 months of CI listening experience participated. Individual experimental FATs were created to best match the frequency-to-place mapping across ears using either sensitivity to binaural temporal-envelope disparities or estimated insertion depth. Spatial localization ability was measured, along with speech perception in spatially collocated or separated noise, first with the clinical FATs and then with the experimental FATs acutely and at 2-month intervals for 6 months. Listeners then returned to the clinical FATs and were retested acutely and after 1 month to control for long-term learning effects.

RESULTS

The experimental FAT varied between listeners, differing by an average of 0.15 octaves from the clinical FAT. No significant differences in performance were observed in any of the measures between the experimental FAT after 6 months and the clinical FAT one month later, and no clear relationship was found between the size of the frequency-allocation shift and perceptual changes.

CONCLUSION

Adjusting the FAT to optimize sensitivity to interaural temporal-envelope disparities did not improve localization or speech perception. The clinical frequency-to-place alignment may already be sufficient, given the inherently poor spectral resolution of CIs. Alternatively, other factors, such as temporal misalignment between the two ears, may need to be addressed before any benefits of spectral alignment can be observed.

Frequency Fitting Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithm in Cochlear Implant Users with Bimodal Binaural Hearing

Optimizing hearing in patients with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral acoustic hearing is a challenge. Evolutionary algorithms (EA) can explore a large set of potential solutions in a stochastic manner to approach the optimum of a minimization problem. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an EA-based protocol to modify the default frequency settings of a MAP (fMAP) of the CI in patients with bimodal hearing. Methods: This monocentric prospective study included 27 adult CI users (with post-lingual deafness and contralateral functional hearing). A fitting program based on EA was developed to approach the best fMAP. Generated fMAPs were tested by speech recognition (word recognition score, WRS) in noise and free-field-like conditions. By combining these first fMAPs and adding some random changes, a total of 13 fMAPs over 3 generations were produced. Participants were evaluated before and 45 to 60 days after the fitting by WRS in noise and questionnaires on global sound quality and music perception in bimodal binaural conditions. Results: WRS in noise improved with the EA-based fitting in comparison to the default fMAP (41.67 ± 9.70% versus 64.63 ± 16.34%, respectively, p = 0.0001, signed-rank test). The global sound quality and music perception were also improved, as judged by ratings on questionnaires and scales. Finally, most patients chose to keep the new fitting definitively. Conclusions: By modifying the default fMAPs, the EA improved the speech discrimination in noise and the sound quality in bimodal binaural conditions.

Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf

When listening with a cochlear implant through one ear and acoustically through the other, binaural benefits and spatial hearing abilities are generally poorer than in other bilaterally stimulated configurations. With the working hypothesis that binaural neurons require interaurally matched inputs, we review causes for mismatch, their perceptual consequences, and experimental methods for mismatch measurements. The focus is on the three primary interaural dimensions of latency, frequency, and level. Often, the mismatch is not constant, but rather highly stimulus-dependent. We report on mismatch compensation strategies, taking into consideration the specific needs of the respective patient groups. Practical challenges typically faced by audiologists in the proposed fitting procedure are discussed. While improvement in certain areas (e.g., speaker localization) is definitely achievable, a more comprehensive mismatch compensation is a very ambitious endeavor. Even in the hypothetical ideal fitting case, performance is not expected to exceed that of a good bilateral cochlear implant user.

Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users

Bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or a CI for single-sided deafness (SSD-CI; one normally functioning acoustic ear) can partially restore spatial-hearing abilities, including sound localization and speech understanding in noise. For these populations, however, interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can occur and thus diminish binaural sensitivity that relies on interaurally frequency-matched neurons. This study examined whether plasticity-reorganization of central neural pathways over time-can compensate for peripheral interaural place mismatch. We hypothesized differential plasticity across two systems: none for binaural processing but adaptation for pitch perception toward frequencies delivered by the specific electrodes. Interaural place mismatch was evaluated in 19 BI-CI and 23 SSD-CI human subjects (both sexes) using binaural processing (interaural-time-difference discrimination with simultaneous bilateral stimulation), pitch perception (pitch ranking for single electrodes or acoustic tones with sequential bilateral stimulation), and physical electrode-location estimates from computed-tomography (CT) scans. On average, CT scans revealed relatively little BI-CI interaural place mismatch (26° insertion-angle mismatch) but a relatively large SSD-CI mismatch, particularly at low frequencies (166° for an electrode tuned to 300 Hz, decreasing to 14° at 7000 Hz). For BI-CI subjects, the three metrics were in agreement because there was little mismatch. For SSD-CI subjects, binaural and CT measurements were in agreement, suggesting little binaural-system plasticity induced by mismatch. The pitch measurements disagreed with binaural and CT measurements, suggesting place-pitch plasticity or a procedural bias. These results suggest that reducing interaural place mismatch and potentially improving binaural processing by reprogramming the CI frequency allocation would be better done using CT-scan than pitch information.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Electrode-array placement for cochlear implants (bionic prostheses that partially restore hearing) does not explicitly align neural representations of frequency information. The resulting interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can diminish spatial-hearing abilities. In this study, adults with two cochlear implants showed reasonable interaural alignment, whereas those with one cochlear implant but normal hearing in the other ear often showed mismatch. In cases of mismatch, binaural sensitivity was best when the same cochlear locations were stimulated in both ears, suggesting that binaural brainstem pathways do not experience plasticity to compensate for mismatch. In contrast, interaurally pitch-matched electrodes deviated from cochlear-location estimates and did not optimize binaural sensitivity. Clinical correction of interaural place mismatch using binaural or computed-tomography (but not pitch) information may improve spatial-hearing benefits.

Effects of temporal fine structure preservation on spatial hearing in bilateral cochlear implant users

Typically, the coding strategies of cochlear implant audio processors discard acoustic temporal fine structure information (TFS), which may be related to the poor perception of interaural time differences (ITDs) and the resulting reduced spatial hearing capabilities compared to normal-hearing individuals. This study aimed to investigate to what extent bilateral cochlear implant (BiCI) recipients can exploit ITD cues provided by a TFS preserving coding strategy (FS4) in a series of sound field spatial hearing tests. As a baseline, we assessed the sensitivity to ITDs and binaural beats of 12 BiCI subjects with a coding strategy disregarding fine structure (HDCIS) and the FS4 strategy. For 250 Hz pure-tone stimuli but not for broadband noise, the BiCI users had significantly improved ITD discrimination using the FS4 strategy. In the binaural beat detection task and the broadband sound localization, spatial discrimination, and tracking tasks, no significant differences between the two tested coding strategies were observed. These results suggest that ITD sensitivity did not generalize to broadband stimuli or sound field spatial hearing tests, suggesting that it would not be useful for real-world listening.

Sound Localization Bias and Error in Bimodal Listeners Improve Instantaneously When the Device Delay Mismatch Is Reduced

Users of a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear, who are provided with a hearing aid (HA) in the contralateral ear, so-called bimodal listeners, are typically affected by a constant and relatively large interaural time delay offset due to differences in signal processing and differences in stimulation. For HA stimulation, the cochlear travelling wave delay is added to the processing delay, while for CI stimulation, the auditory nerve fibers are stimulated directly. In case of MED-EL CI systems in combination with different HA types, the CI stimulation precedes the acoustic HA stimulation by 3 to 10 ms. A self-designed, battery-powered, portable, and programmable delay line was applied to the CI to reduce the device delay mismatch in nine bimodal listeners. We used an A-B-B-A test design and determined if sound source localization improves when the device delay mismatch is reduced by delaying the CI stimulation by the HA processing delay (τ_HA). Results revealed that every subject in our group of nine bimodal listeners benefited from the approach. The root-mean-square error of sound localization improved significantly from 52.6° to 37.9°. The signed bias also improved significantly from 25.2° to 10.5°, with positive values indicating a bias toward the CI. Furthermore, two other delay values (τ_HA –1 ms and τ_HA +1 ms) were applied, and with the latter value, the signed bias was further reduced in some test subjects. We conclude that sound source localization accuracy in bimodal listeners improves instantaneously and sustainably when the device delay mismatch is reduced.

A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users

Interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch for bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) listeners is often evaluated using pitch-comparison tasks that can be susceptible to procedural biases. Bias effects were compared for three sequential interaural pitch-comparison tasks in six BI-CI listeners using single-electrode direct stimulation. The reference (right ear) was a single basal, middle, or apical electrode. The comparison electrode (left ear) was chosen from one of three ranges: basal half, full array, or apical half. In Experiment 1 (discrimination), interaural pairs were chosen randomly (method of constant stimuli). In Experiment 2 (ranking), an efficient adaptive procedure rank ordered 3 reference and 6 or 11 comparison electrodes. In Experiment 3 (matching), listeners adjusted the comparison electrode to pitch match the reference. Each experiment was evaluated for testing-range bias (point of subjective equality [PSE] vs. comparison-range midpoint) and reference-electrode slope bias (PSE vs. reference electrode). Discrimination showed large biases for both metrics; matching showed a smaller but significant reference-electrode bias; ranking showed no significant biases in either dimension. Ranking and matching were also evaluated for starting-point bias (PSE vs. adaptive-track starting point), but neither showed significant effects. A response-distribution truncation model explained a nonsignificant bias for ranking but it could not fully explain the observed biases for discrimination or matching. It is concluded that (a) BI-CI interaural pitch comparisons are inconsistent across test methods; (b) biases must be evaluated in more than one dimension before accepting the results as valid; and (c) of the three methods tested, ranking was least susceptible to biases and therefore emerged as the optimal approach.