Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (7) (remove)
Document Type
Conference Type
- Konferenz-Abstract (1)
- Konferenzartikel (1)
- Sonstiges (1)
Language
- English (7) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (7) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Asymmetric hearing loss (1)
- Bildverarbeitung (1)
- Bimodal stimulation (1)
- CI Stimulation (1)
- Cochlea (1)
- Cochlear implant (1)
- Hörgerät (1)
- Implantat (1)
- Radiologie (1)
- Single-sided deafness (1)
Open Access
- Open Access (3)
- Closed Access (2)
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.
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.
BiCI users’ sensitivity to interaural phase differences for single- and multi-channel stimulation
(2016)
The ability to detect a signal masked by noise is improved in normal-hearing (NH) listeners when interaural phase differences (IPD) between the ear signals exist either in the masker or the signal. We determined the impact of different coding strategies in bilaterally implanted cochlear implant (BiCI) users with and without fine-structure coding (FSC) on masking level differences. First, binaural intelligibility level differences (BILD) were determined in NH listeners and BiCI users using their clinical speech processors. NH subjects (n=8) showed a significant mean BILD of 7.5 dB. In contrast, BiCI users (n=9) without FSC as well as with FSC revealed a barely significant mean BILD (0.4 dB respectively 0.6 dB). Second, IPD thresholds were measured in BiCI users using either their speech processors with FS4 or direct stimulation with FSC. With the latter approach, synchronized stimulation providing an interaural accuracy of stimulation timing of 1.67 µs was realized on pitch matched electrode pairs. The resulting individual IPD threshold was lower in most of the subjects with direct stimulation than with their speech processors. These outcomes indicate that some BiCI users can benefit from increased temporal precision of interaural FSC and adjusted interaural frequency-place mapping presumably resulting in improved BILD.
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.
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.