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)
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)
- CI Stimulation (1)
- Cochlea (1)
- Cochlear implant (1)
- Hörgerät (1)
- Implantat (1)
- Radiologie (1)
- Single-sided deafness (1)
- Sprache (1)
- Verstehen (1)
- audiometry (1)
- auditory model (1)
- auditory training (1)
- cochlear implants (1)
- device delay mismatch (1)
- open fitting (1)
- spatial release from maskin (1)
- speech intelligibility model (1)
- unilateral hearing loss (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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.