The Benefit of Bimodal Hearing and Beamforming for Cochlear Implant Users

INTRODUCTION

Cochlear implantation is the standard treatment for severe to profound hearing loss. While cochlear implant (CI) users can communicate effectively in quiet environments, speech understanding in noise remains challenging. Bimodal hearing, combining a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the other, has shown advantages over unilateral electrical hearing, especially for speech understanding in noisy conditions. Beamforming is a technique used to improve speech understanding in noise by detecting sound direction and enhancing frontal (speech) sounds while attenuating background noise. One specific beamformer, Stereozoom, combines signals from microphones in both ears to create a focused beam toward the front resulting in a binaural beamformer (BB), in order to improve speech intelligibility in noise for bilateral and bimodal CI users.

METHODS

A prospective crossover study involving 17 bimodal CI users was conducted, and participants were tested with various device configurations (CI, HA, CI + HA) with and without BB. Speech recognition testing with the Dutch/Flemish matrix test was performed in a sound-attenuated booth with diffuse noise to simulate realistic listening conditions.

RESULTS

The results showed a statistically significant benefit of bimodal hearing over the CI configuration and showed a statistical significant benefit of BB for the CI and CI + HA configuration. The benefit of BB in the HA configuration was not statistically significant probably due to the higher variance. The benefit of BB in the three configurations did not differ statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, bimodal hearing offers advantages for speech understanding in noise for CI users. BB provides a benefit in various device configurations, leading to improved speech intelligibility when speech comes from the front in challenging listening environments.

An overview of factors affecting bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) speech understanding outcomes

Improvements in device technology, surgical technique, and patient outcomes have resulted in a broadening of cochlear implantation criteria to consider those with increasing levels of useful low-to-mid frequency residual acoustic hearing. Residual acoustic hearing allows for the addition of a hearing aid (HA) to complement the cochlear implant (CI) and has demonstrated enhanced listening outcomes. However, wide inter-subject outcome variability exists and thus identification of contributing factors would be of clinical interest and may aid with pre-operative patient counselling. The optimal fitting procedure and frequency assignments for the two hearing devices used in combination to enhance listening outcomes also remains unclear. The understanding of how acoustic and electric speech information is fundamentally combined and utilised by the listener may allow for the optimisation of device fittings and frequency allocations to provide best bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) patient outcomes. This article will provide an overview of contributing factors to bimodal and EAS listening outcomes, explore areas of contention, and discuss common study limitations.

Systematic review of cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetrical hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Rapid advances in cochlear implantation has witnessed an expanding spectrum for candidacy worldwide. This includes a subgroup of adults with asymmetrical hearing loss who have a wide range in their hearing capacity between the two ears. As per guidelines they are not included in mainstream candidacy for CI across the world. Evidence is now emerging to support the benefits of CI in AHL.

METHODS

This review analyzed literature regarding the outcomes of CI in AHL. Primary outcome measure was to assess audiological benefits and secondary outcome measure was to assess hearing related quality of life. 15 relevant articles, published worldwide between 2009 and 2019 were chosen. CASP checklist for systematic reviews was used to ascertain the quality of literature. The strength of recommendations from each study was analyzed and classified as strong, moderate, weak or none based on GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Heterogeneity in samples was obvious and samples varied largely between the studies. The levels of evidence ranged from systematic review to expert opinion, but overall they reflected positively on both audiological and QOL benefits.

CONCLUSION

CI provides important auditory and QOL benefits in AHL, but there is no high level evidence as yet to strongly support CI for AHL. A long term multi-centric study is necessary to influence a change in practice for a growing population of AHL.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03052920.

Evaluating hearing performance with cochlear implants within the same patient using daily randomization and imaging-based fitting - The ELEPHANT study

Background

Prospective research in the field of cochlear implants is hampered by methodological issues and small sample sizes. The ELEPHANT study presents an alternative clinical trial design with a daily randomized approach evaluating individualized tonotopical fitting of a cochlear implant (CI).

Methods

A single-blinded, daily-randomized clinical trial will be implemented to evaluate a new imaging-based CI mapping strategy. A minimum of 20 participants will be included from the start of the rehabilitation process with a 1-year follow-up period. Based on a post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT), mapping of electrical input will be aligned to natural place-pitch arrangement in the individual cochlea. The CI’s frequency allocation table will be adjusted to match the electrical stimulation of frequencies as closely as possible to corresponding acoustic locations in the cochlea. A randomization scheme will be implemented whereby the participant, blinded to the intervention allocation, crosses over between the experimental and standard fitting program on a daily basis, and thus effectively acts as his own control, followed by a period of free choice between both maps to incorporate patient preference. With this new approach the occurrence of a first-order carryover effect and a limited sample size is addressed.

Discussion

The experimental fitting strategy is thought to give rise to a steeper learning curve, result in better performance in challenging listening situations, improve sound quality, better complement residual acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear and be preferred by recipients of a CI. Concurrently, the suitability of the novel trial design will be considered in investigating these hypotheses.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03892941. Registered 27 March 2019.

Sentence Recognition in Quiet and Noise in School-Going Indian Children Using Bimodal Hearing

To compare sentence recognition scores in quiet and noise in 8 to 15-years old children using bimodal hearing in CI only condition and bimodal condition (BM) (CI + HA). Twenty prelingually deafened participants (8-15 years) using cochlear implant in one ear and hearing aid in the other ear were recruited. The sentence recognition was assessed in CI Quiet, CI + 15 dB SNR, CI + 8 dB SNR, BM Quiet, BM + 15 dB SNR and BM + 8 dB SNR. The highest sentence recognition scores were obtained in the quiet condition, followed by the + 15 dB SNR and then by the + 8 dB SNR condition in both CI only and BM conditions. The sentence recognition scores obtained in BM condition were significantly better than CI only condition. Variables like unaided PTA and aided PTA correlated significantly with the sentence recognition scores in BM conditions. This study was done on Indian population where till date no published data is available. It recommends that all the school going children using unilateral cochlear implants should be recommended to use a hearing aid in the contra lateral ear. This practice will help them to receive all the binaural benefits, better listening in noise, localization, spatial release from masking and pitch perception in comparison to unilateral CI use. Moreover, it will help to keep the auditory nerve viable for future implantation which is an important implication for children who have limited benefit from the contra lateral hearing aid.

The Effect of Binaural Beamforming Technology on Speech Intelligibility in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Recipients

Although the benefit of bimodal listening in cochlear implant users has been agreed on, speech comprehension remains a challenge in acoustically complex real-life environments due to reverberation and disturbing background noises. One way to additionally improve bimodal auditory performance is the use of directional microphones. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a binaural beamformer for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. This prospective study measured speech reception thresholds (SRT) in noise in a repeated-measures design that varied in listening modality for static and dynamic listening conditions. A significant improvement in SRT of 4.7 dB was found with the binaural beamformer switched on in the bimodal static listening condition. No significant improvement was found in the dynamic listening condition. We conclude that there is a clear additional advantage of the binaural beamformer in bimodal CI users for predictable/static listening conditions with frontal target speech and spatially separated noise sources.

Performance variability on perceptual discrimination tasks in profoundly deaf adults with cochlear implants

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate performance on two challenging listening tasks, talker and regional accent discrimination, and to assess variables that could have affected the outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study using 35 adults with one cochlear implant (CI) or a CI and a contralateral hearing aid (bimodal hearing) was conducted. Adults completed talker and regional accent discrimination tasks.

METHODS

Two-alternative forced-choice tasks were used to assess talker and accent discrimination in a group of adults who ranged in age from 30 years old to 81 years old.

RESULTS

A large amount of performance variability was observed across listeners for both discrimination tasks. Three listeners successfully discriminated between talkers for both listening tasks, 14 participants successfully completed one discrimination task and 18 participants were not able to discriminate between talkers for either listening task. Some adults who used bimodal hearing benefitted from the addition of acoustic cues provided through a HA but for others the HA did not help with discrimination abilities. Acoustic speech feature analysis of the test signals indicated that both the talker speaking rate and the fundamental frequency (F0) helped with talker discrimination. For accent discrimination, findings suggested that access to more salient spectral cues was important for better discrimination performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to perform challenging discrimination tasks successfully likely involves a number of complex interactions between auditory and non-auditory pre- and post-implant factors. To understand why some adults with CIs perform similarly to adults with normal hearing and others experience difficulty discriminating between talkers, further research will be required with larger populations of adults who use unilateral CIs, bilateral CIs and bimodal hearing.

Interaural stimulation timing in single sided deaf cochlear implant users

The interaural time difference (ITD) is an important cue for the localization of sounds. ITD changes as little as 10 μs can be detected by the human auditory system. By provision of one ear with a cochlear implant (CI) ITD are altered due to the partial replacement of the peripheral auditory system. A hearing aid (HA), in contrast, does not replace but adds a processing delay component to the peripheral auditory system extending ITD. The aim of the present study was to quantify interaural stimulation timing between these different modalities to estimate the need for central auditory temporal compensation in single sided deaf CI users or bimodal CI/HA users. For this purpose, wave V latencies of auditory brainstem responses evoked either acoustically (ABR) or electrically via the CI (EABR) have been measured. The sum of delays consisting of CI signal processing measured in the MED-EL OPUS2 audio processor and EABR wave V latencies evoked on different intracochlear sites allowed an estimation of the entire CI channel-specific delay for MED-EL MAESTRO CI systems. We compared these values with ABR wave V latencies measured in the contralateral normal hearing or HA provided ear in different frequency bands. The results showed that EABR wave V latencies were consistently shorter than those evoked acoustically in the unaided normal hearing ear. Thus, artificial delays within the audio processor can be implemented to adjust interaural stimulation timing. The currently implemented group delays in the MED-EL CI system turned out to be reasonably similar to those of the unaided ear. For adjustment of CI and contralateral HA, in contrast, an adjustable additional across-frequency delay in the range of 1-11 ms implemented in the CI would be required. Especially for bimodal CI/HA users the adjustment of interaural stimulation timing may induce improved binaural hearing, reduced need for central auditory temporal compensation and increased acceptance of the CI/HA provision.

Bimodal benefit depends on the performance difference between a cochlear implant and a hearing aid

Objectives The present study characterizes the relationship between bimodal benefit and hearing aid (HA) performance, cochlear implant (CI) performance, and the difference in the performances of the two devices. Methods Fourteen adult bimodal listeners participated in the study. Consonant, vowel, and sentence recognition were measured in quiet and noise (at a +5 and +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)) with an HA alone, a CI alone, and with the combined use of an HA and CI in each listener. Speech and noise were presented directly in front of the listener. Results The correlation analyses showed that bimodal benefit was significantly associated with the difference in performances of a CI and an HA in all testing materials, with HA-alone performance in vowel recognition, and with CI-alone performance in sentence recognition. However, regression analyses showed that the independent contribution of the difference in performance across ears to bimodal benefit was significant, irrespective of the testing material or the SNR: the smaller the difference, the greater the benefit. Further, the independent contributions of HA-only performance and CI-alone performance were not significant factors in predicting the existence of bimodal benefit across testing materials and SNRs when the effect of the difference between CI and HA performance was removed from the model. Conclusion The results suggest that bimodal benefit is limited by how effectively the modalities integrate, rather than HA-only or CI-alone performance, and that this integration is facilitated when the performances of the modalities are similar.

Does acoustic fundamental frequency information enhance cochlear implant performance?

OBJECTIVES

Low-frequency information via an acoustic aid has been shown to increase speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant (CI) listeners. It has been suggested that fundamental frequency (F0) provides this advantage. This study aimed to investigate the contribution of F0.

METHODS

Seven cochlear implant users having residual hearing at 125, 250, and 500 Hz contralateral to the implant were recruited. Speech intelligibility in noise was measured using an adaptive procedure for three listening conditions: (1) CI alone, (2) CI plus filtered acoustic information contralaterally, and (3) CI plus acoustic F0 contralaterally. In condition 2, the sentence material was low-passed at 500 Hz and presented via an insert earphone into the contralateral ear. In condition 3, F0 was extracted using Praat and presented as a sine wave with the same F0 variation over time as the original sentence.

RESULTS

Although benefit was observed when low-frequency information was added for the majority of participants, on average no statistically significant difference was found for the three listening conditions.

DISCUSSION

These results are not consistent with current literature. It is proposed that glimpsing cues may be responsible for the advantage observed in previous studies; in this study, both target and masker were presented in the acoustic condition and this may explain the discrepancy.

CONCLUSION

The benefit of additional acoustic information may be highly variable and individual to participants, but on average no statistically significant difference was seen.

Bimodal benefits on objective and subjective outcomes for adult cochlear implant users

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Given that only a few studies have focused on the bimodal benefits on objective and subjective outcomes and emphasized the importance of individual data, the present study aimed to measure the bimodal benefits on the objective and subjective outcomes for adults with cochlear implant.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Fourteen listeners with bimodal devices were tested on the localization and recognition abilities using environmental sounds, 1-talker, and 2-talker speech materials. The localization ability was measured through an 8-loudspeaker array. For the recognition measures, listeners were asked to repeat the sentences or say the environmental sounds the listeners heard. As a subjective questionnaire, three domains of Korean-version of Speech, Spatial, Qualities of Hearing scale (K-SSQ) were used to explore any relationships between objective and subjective outcomes.

RESULTS

Based on the group-mean data, the bimodal hearing enhanced both localization and recognition regardless of test material. However, the inter- and intra-subject variability appeared to be large across test materials for both localization and recognition abilities. Correlation analyses revealed that the relationships were not always consistent between the objective outcomes and the subjective self-reports with bimodal devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study supports significant bimodal advantages on localization and recognition measures, yet the large individual variability in bimodal benefits should be considered carefully for the clinical assessment as well as counseling. The discrepant relations between objective and subjective results suggest that the bimodal benefits in traditional localization or recognition measures might not necessarily correspond to the self-reported subjective advantages in everyday listening environments.