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)
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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.