Refine
Document Type
- Article (reviewed) (14)
- Conference Proceeding (10)
Conference Type
- Konferenz-Abstract (6)
- Konferenz-Poster (2)
- Konferenzartikel (1)
- Sonstiges (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (24) (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)
- Arbeitsfähigkeit (1)
- Asymmetric hearing loss (1)
- Bildverarbeitung (1)
Institute
Open Access
- Open Access (15)
- Closed (3)
- Gold (3)
- Closed Access (2)
Zeitliche Anpassung führt zu verbesserter Schalllokalisation bei bimodal versorgten CI-/HG-Trägern
(2021)
Bei bimodal versorgten Cochlea-Implantaten (CI) / Hörgerät (HG)-Trägern entsteht durch die unterschiedliche Signalverarbeitung der Geräte eine konstante interaurale Zeitverzögerung in der Größenordnung von mehreren Millisekunden. Für MED-EL CI-Systeme in Kombination mit verschiedenen HG-Typen haben wir den jeweiligen Device-Delay-Mismatch quantifiziert. In der aktuellen Studie untersuchen wir den Einfluss der Device-Delay-Mismatch bei simulierten und tatsächlichen bimodalen Hörern auf die Genauigkeit der Schalllokalisation.
Um den Device-Delay-Mismatch bei bimodal versorgten Patienten zu verringern, haben wir die CI-Stimulation um die gemessene HG-Signallaufzeit und zwei weitere Werte verzögert. Nach einer Angewöhnungsphase war der effektive Winkelfehler bei Verzögerung um die HG-Signallaufzeit hochsignifikant reduziert im Vergleich zu der Testkondition ohne CI-Verzögerung (mittlere Verbesserung: 11 % ; p < .01, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test). Aber auch mit den beiden weiteren Verzögerungswerten wurden Verbesserungen erreicht. Anhand der Ergebnisse lässt sich der optimale patientenspezifische Verzögerungswert näher eingrenzen.
Unterschiedliche Stimulationszeitpunkte bei bimodaler Versorgung mit Hörgerät und Cochleaimplantat
(2023)
Die bimodale Versorgung von Patienten mit Hörgerät (HG) ipsilateral und Cochleaimplantat (CI) kontralateral bei asymmetrischem Hörverlust ist aufgrund vieler inhärenter Variablen die komplizierteste Versorgungsart im Kontext der Versorgung mit CI. Im vorliegenden Übersichtsartikel werden alle systematischen interauralen Unterschiede zwischen elektrischer und akustischer Stimulation dargestellt, die bei dieser Versorgungsart auftreten können. Darüber hinaus werden Methoden zur Quantifizierung des interauralen Latenzoffsets, also des Zeitunterschieds zwischen der akustischen und elektrischen Stimulation des Hörnervs, mittels Registrierung auditorisch evozierter Potenziale – erzeugt durch akustische bzw. elektrische Stimulation – und Messungen an den Sprachprozessoren und Hörgeräten vorgestellt. Die technische Kompensation des interauralen Latenzoffsets und ihre positive Auswirkung auf die Schalllokalisationsfähigkeit bimodal mit CI und HG versorgter Patienten wird ebenfalls beschrieben. Zuletzt werden neueste Erkenntnisse diskutiert, die Gründe dafür aufzeigen, warum die Kompensation des interauralen Latenzoffsets das Sprachverstehen im Störgeräusch bei bimodal versorgten CI-/HG-Trägern nicht verbessert.
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.
The effect of fluctuating maskers on speech understanding of high-performing cochlear implant users
(2016)
Objective: The present study evaluated whether the poorer baseline performance of cochlear implant (CI) users or the technical and/or physiological properties of CI stimulation are responsible for the absence of masking release. Design: This study measured speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in continuous and modulated noise as a function of signal to noise ratio (SNR). Study sample: A total of 24 subjects participated: 12 normal-hearing (NH) listeners and 12 subjects provided with recent MED-EL CI systems. Results: The mean SRT of CI users in continuous noise was −3.0 ± 1.5 dB SNR (mean ± SEM), while the normal-hearing group reached −5.9 ± 0.8 dB SNR. In modulated noise, the difference across groups increased considerably. For CI users, the mean SRT worsened to −1.4 ± 2.3 dB SNR, while it improved for normal-hearing listeners to −18.9 ± 3.8 dB SNR. Conclusions: The detrimental effect of fluctuating maskers on SRTs in CI users shown by prior studies was confirmed by the current study. Concluding, the absence of masking release is mainly caused by the technical and/or physiological properties of CI stimulation, not just the poorer baseline performance of many CI users compared to normal-hearing subjects. Speech understanding in modulated noise was more robust in CI users who had a relatively large electrical dynamic range.
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 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.
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 IPD is highly desirable. In this study, we compared two coding strategies in BiCI users provided with CI systems from MED-EL (Innsbruck, Austria). The CI systems were bilaterally programmed either with the fine structure processing strategy FS4 or with the constant rate strategy high definition continuous interleaved sampling (HDCIS). Familiarization periods between 6 and 12 weeks were considered. The effect of IPD was measured in two types of experiments: (a) IPD detection thresholds with tonal signals addressing mainly one apical interaural electrode pair and (b) with speech in noise in terms of binaural speech intelligibility level differences (BILD) addressing multiple electrodes bilaterally. The results in (a) showed improved IPD detection thresholds with FS4 compared with HDCIS in four out of the seven BiCI users. In contrast, 12 BiCI users in (b) showed similar BILD with FS4 (0.6 ± 1.9 dB) and HDCIS (0.5 ± 2.0 dB). However, no correlation between results in (a) and (b) both obtained with FS4 was found. In conclusion, the degree of IPD sensitivity determined on an apical interaural electrode pair was not an indicator for BILD based on bilateral multielectrode stimulation.
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.
Im Rahmen der Cochleaimplantat (CI)-Versorgung werden sowohl intraoperativ als auch postoperativ verschiedene elektrische und elektrophysiologische Diagnostikverfahren eingesetzt, bei denen elektrische Messgrößen vom CI erfasst und elektrophysiologische Messungen bei CI-Patienten durchgeführt werden. Zu den elektrophysiologischen Diagnostikverfahren zählen die Messung der elektrisch evozierten Summenaktionspotenziale des Hörnervs, die Registrierung der elektrisch evozierten auditorischen Hirnstammpotenziale und die Erfassung der elektrisch evozierten auditorischen kortikalen Potenziale. Diese Potenziale widerspiegeln die Erregung des Hörnervs und die Reizverarbeitung in verschiedenen Stationen der aufsteigenden Hörbahn bei intracochleärer elektrischer Stimulation mittels eines CI. Bei den aktuellen CI sind die Beurteilung der Elektrodenlage sowie die Prüfung der Ankopplung des Implantats an den Hörnerv wichtige Anwendungsgebiete der elektrophysiologischen Diagnostikverfahren. Ein weiteres bedeutendes Einsatzfeld stellt die Prüfung der Reizverarbeitung in der Hörbahn dar. Das Hauptanwendungsgebiet dieser Verfahren bildet jedoch die Unterstützung der Anpassung der CI-Sprachprozessoren bei Säuglingen und Kleinkindern auf der Basis elektrophysiologischer Schwellen.