Refine
Document Type
- Article (reviewed) (10)
- Conference Proceeding (6)
Conference Type
- Konferenz-Abstract (3)
- Konferenz-Poster (1)
- Konferenzartikel (1)
- Sonstiges (1)
Language
- English (16) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (16) (remove)
Keywords
- bimodal hearing (3)
- sound localization (3)
- binaural hearing (2)
- cochlear implant (2)
- hearing aid (2)
- interaural stimulation timing (2)
- speech in noise (2)
- Asymmetric hearing loss (1)
- Bildverarbeitung (1)
- Bimodal stimulation (1)
Institute
Open Access
- Open Access (10)
- Gold (3)
- Closed Access (2)
- Closed (1)
Subjects utilizing a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) on the contralateral ear suffer from mismatches in stimulation timing due to different processing latencies of both devices. This device delay mismatch leads to a temporal mismatch in auditory nerve stimulation. Compensating for this auditory nerve stimulation mismatch by compensating for the device delay mismatch can significantly improve sound source localization accuracy. One CI manufacturer has already implemented the possibility of mismatch compensation in its current fitting software. This study investigated if this fitting parameter can be readily used in clinical settings and determined the effects of familiarization to a compensated device delay mismatch over a period of 3–4 weeks. Sound localization accuracy and speech understanding in noise were measured in eleven bimodal CI/HA users, with and without a compensation of the device delay mismatch. The results showed that sound localization bias improved to 0°, implying that the localization bias towards the CI was eliminated when the device delay mismatch was compensated. The RMS error was improved by 18% with this improvement not reaching statistical significance. The effects were acute and did not further improve after 3 weeks of familiarization. For the speech tests, spatial release from masking did not improve with a compensated mismatch. The results show that this fitting parameter can be readily used by clinicians to improve sound localization ability in bimodal users. Further, our findings suggest that subjects with poor sound localization ability benefit the most from the device delay mismatch compensation.
Introduction: Subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss today often receive hearing aids (HA) with open-fitting (OF). In OF, direct sound reaches the eardrums with minimal damping. Due to the required processing delay in digital HA, the amplified HA sound follows some milliseconds later. This process occurs in both ears symmetrically in bilateral HA provision and is likely to have no or minor detrimental effect on binaural hearing. However, the delayed and amplified sound are only present in one ear in cases of unilateral hearing loss provided with one HA. This processing alters interaural timing differences in the resulting ear signals.
Methods: In the present study, an experiment with normal-hearing subjects to investigate speech intelligibility in noise with direct and delayed sound was performed to mimic unilateral and bilateral HA provision with OF.
Results: The outcomes reveal that these delays affect speech reception thresholds (SRT) in the unilateral OF simulation when presenting speech and noise from different spatial directions. A significant decrease in the median SRT from –18.1 to –14.7 dB SNR is observed when typical HA processing delays are applied. On the other hand, SRT was independent of the delay between direct and delayed sound in the bilateral OF simulation.
Discussion: The significant effect emphasizes the development of rapid processing algorithms for unilateral HA provision.
In asymmetric treatment of hearing loss, processing latencies of the modalities typically differ. This often alters the reference interaural time difference (ITD) (i.e., the ITD at 0° azimuth) by several milliseconds. Such changes in reference ITD have shown to influence sound source localization in bimodal listeners provided with a hearing aid (HA) in one and a cochlear implant (CI) in the contralateral ear. In this study, the effect of changes in reference ITD on speech understanding, especially spatial release from masking (SRM) in normal-hearing subjects was explored. Speech reception thresholds (SRT) were measured in ten normal-hearing subjects for reference ITDs of 0, 1.75, 3.5, 5.25 and 7 ms with spatially collocated (S0N0) and spatially separated (S0N90) sound sources. Further, the cues for separation of target and masker were manipulated to measure the effect of a reference ITD on unmasking by A) ITDs and interaural level differences (ILDs), B) ITDs only and C) ILDs only. A blind equalization-cancellation (EC) model was applied to simulate all measured conditions. SRM decreased significantly in conditions A) and B) when the reference ITD was increased: In condition A) from 8.8 dB SNR on average at 0 ms reference ITD to 4.6 dB at 7 ms, in condition B) from 5.5 dB to 1.1 dB. In condition C) no significant effect was found. These results were accurately predicted by the applied EC-model. The outcomes show that interaural processing latency differences should be considered in asymmetric treatment of hearing loss.
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.
In bimodal cochlear implant (CI) / hearing aid (HA) users a constant interaural time delay in the order of several milliseconds occurs due to differences in signal processing of the devices. For MED-EL CI systems in combination with different HA types, we have quantified the respective device delay mismatch (Zirn et al. 2015). In the current study, we investigate the effect of the device delay mismatch in simulated and actual bimodal listeners on sound localization accuracy.
To deal with the device delay mismatch in actual bimodal listeners we delayed the CI stimulation according to the measured HA processing delay and two other values. With all delay values highly significant improvements of the rms error in the localization task were observed compared to the test without the delay. The results help to narrow down the optimal patient-specific delay value.
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.
Objectives: Speech recognition on the telephone poses a challenge for patients with cochlear implants (CIs) due to a reduced bandwidth of transmission. This trial evaluates a home-based auditory training with telephone-specific filtered speech material to improve sentence recognition. Design: Randomised controlled parallel double-blind. Setting: One tertiary referral centre. Participants: A total of 20 postlingually deafened patients with CIs. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measure was sentence recognition assessed by a modified version of the Oldenburg Sentence Test filtered to the telephone bandwidth of 0.3-3.4 kHz. Additionally, pure tone thresholds, recognition of monosyllables and subjective hearing benefit were acquired at two separate visits before and after a home-based training period of 10-14 weeks. For training, patients received a CD with speech material, either unmodified for the unfiltered training group or filtered to the telephone bandwidth in the filtered group. Results: Patients in the unfiltered training group achieved an average sentence recognition score of 70.0%±13.6% (mean±SD) before and 73.6%±16.5% after training. Patients in the filtered training group achieved 70.7%±13.8% and 78.9%±7.0%, a statistically significant difference (P=.034, t10 =2.292; two-way RM ANOVA/Bonferroni). An increase in the recognition of monosyllabic words was noted in both groups. The subjective benefit was positive for filtered and negative for unfiltered training. Conclusions: Auditory training with specifically filtered speech material provided an improvement in sentence recognition on the telephone compared to training with unfiltered material.
The ability to detect a target signal masked by noise is improved in normal-hearing listeners when interaural phase differences (IPDs) between the ear signals exist either in the masker or in the signal. To improve binaural hearing in bilaterally implanted cochlear implant (BiCI) users, a coding strategy providing the best possible access to IPDs is highly desirable. Outcomes of a previous study (Zirn, Arndt et al. 2016) revealed that a subset of BiCI users showed improved IPD detection thresholds with the fine structure processing strategy FS4 compared to the constant rate strategy HDCIS using narrowband stimuli. In contrast, little differences between the coding strategies were found for broadband stimuli with regard to binaural speech intelligibility level differences (BILD) as an estimate of binaural unmasking. Compared to normalhearing listeners (7.5 ± 1.2 dB) BILD were small in BiCI users (around 0.5 dB with both coding strategies).
In the present work, we investigated the influence of binaural fitting parameters on BILD. In our cohort of BiCI users many were implanted with electrode arrays differing in length left versus right. Because this length difference typically corresponded to the distance of two electrode contacts the first modification of bilateral fitting was a tonotopic adjustment by deactivation of the most apical electrode contact on the side with the deeper inserted array (tonotopic approach).
The second modification was the isolation of the residual, most apical electrode contacts by deactivation of the basally adjacent electrode contact on each side (tonotopic sparse approach). Applying these modifications, BILD improved by up to 1.5 dB.
BACKGROUND:
While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL.
METHODS:
This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada.
RESULTS:
A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable.
CONCLUSION:
A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.