Bimodal Benefit Research Articles

Bimodal Benefits Revealed by Categorical Perception of Lexical Tones in Mandarin-Speaking Kindergarteners With a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Purpose Pitch reception poses challenges for individuals with cochlear implants (CIs), and adding a hearing aid (HA) in the nonimplanted ear is potentially beneficial. The current study used fine-scale synthetic speech stimuli to investigate the bimodal benefit for lexical tone categorization in Mandarin-speaking kindergarteners using a CI and an HA in opposite ears. Method The data were collected from 16 participants who were required to complete two classical tasks for speech categorical perception (CP) with CI + HA device condition and CI alone condition. Linear mixed-effects models were constructed to evaluate the identification and discrimination scores across different device conditions. Results The bimodal kindergarteners showed CP for the continuum varying from Mandarin Tone 1 and Tone 2. Moreover, the additional acoustic information from the contralateral HA contributes to improved lexical tone categorization, with a steeper slope, a higher discrimination score of between-category stimuli pair, and an improved peakedness score (i.e., an increased benefit magnitude for discriminations of between-category over within-category pairs) for the CI + HA condition than the CI alone condition. The bimodal kindergarteners with better residual hearing thresholds at 250 Hz level in the nonimplanted ear could perceive lexical tones more categorically. Conclusion The enhanced CP results with bimodal listening provide clear evidence for the clinical practice to fit a contralateral HA in the nonimplanted ear in kindergarteners with unilateral CIs with direct benefits from the low-frequency acoustic hearing.

The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech

Cochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency information that CIs provide, as well as by the envelope coding in CIs that discards the temporal fine structure (TFS). Contralateral amplification with a hearing aid, referred to as bimodal hearing, can potentially provide CI users with TFS cues to complement the envelope cues provided by the CI signal. In this study, we investigated whether the use of a CI alone provides access to only envelope cues and whether acoustic amplification can provide additional access to TFS cues. To this end, we evaluated speech recognition in bimodal listeners, using SS noise and two amplitude-modulated noise types, namely babble noise and amplitude-modulated steady-state (AMSS) noise. We hypothesized that speech recognition in noise depends on the envelope of the noise, but not on its TFS when listening with a CI. Secondly, we hypothesized that the amount of benefit gained by the addition of a contralateral hearing aid depends on both the envelope and TFS of the noise. The two amplitude-modulated noise types decreased speech recognition more effectively than SS noise. Against expectations, however, we found that babble noise decreased speech recognition more effectively than AMSS noise in the CI-only condition. Therefore, we rejected our hypothesis that TFS is not available to CI users. In line with expectations, we found that the bimodal benefit was highest in babble noise. However, there was no significant difference between the bimodal benefit obtained in SS and AMSS noise. Our results suggest that a CI alone can provide TFS cues and that bimodal benefits in noise depend on TFS, but not on the envelope of the noise.

A Literature Review of Bimodal Fitting

Although there are quite a few bimodal cochlear implant users, bimodal fitting guidelines were not fully developed. Bimodal fitting optimization is one of the factors that contribute to successful bimodal outcomes. The purpose of this study is to investigate recent literatures related to bimodal fitting to establish evidence based bimodal fitting guidelines. Three databases including Google Scholar, PubMed publisher, and PLOS One were searched to review bimodal fitting literatures. A total of 599,604 articles were identified by using ten bimodal relevant keywords at the initial stage. Then, we included 192 articles with abstract review, inclusion and exclusion criteria and removals of duplicates. Lastly, two authors reviewed full texts and identified a total of 19 bimodal fitting articles. Results were categorized into type of bimodal intervention, procedures, and outcomes. Bimodal fitting procedures, test materials, and questionnaires were also summarized. A total of 18 articles consist of bimodal hearing aid fitting covering hearing aid fitting formula, gain adjustment, loudness balance, frequency band, frequency lowering technology, and overall bimodal fitting guidelines. Only one article includes bimodal cochlear implant fitting with low frequency band adjustment. Several factors including real-ear measurement, loudness balance test, frequency band selection considering cochlear dead region, and subjective questionnaires are considered to optimize bimodal hearing aid fitting. Bimodal fitting guidelines considering several relevant factors will optimize bimodal fitting and improve bimodal benefits.

Comparison of Speech Perception Abilities of Children using Bimodal Hearing with Children using Cochlear Implant Alone

Abstract Introduction There are very few studies comparing speech perception abilities of children using bimodal hearing over monaural cochlear implant and factors related to benefit of bimodal hearing. The aim of this study is to compare speech perception abilities of children using bimodal fitting versus children using cochlear implant alone and explore factors related to benefit of bimodal hearing. Materials and Methods In the present study, 20 cochlear implantees with the hearing age range of 3 to 8 years were included. Speech perception performance was assessed by means of Parent’s Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children scale and early speech perception (ESP) test: Pattern Perception Words, Monosyllabic Words, Bisyllabic, and Trisyllabic Words Identification test. ESP test was carried out in two conditions cochlear implant with hearing aid in opposite ear (CIHA), bimodal, and cochlear implant (CI) alone. Aided audiometry was also carried out in above mentioned two conditions. Results and Discussion On aided audiometry test, aided thresholds were improved by 5 to 6 dB in CIHA condition as compared to CI alone condition in 14 out of 20 children. Whereas on speech perception test, there was a significant improvement of 15 to 20% on domains of ESP test in these children. Factors such as implant age, chronological age, and number of hours of hearing aid usage were not significantly associated with benefit. Nevertheless aided threshold at 4,000 Hz was found to be significantly associated with bimodal benefit. Conclusion Bimodal hearing is beneficial in most of the children than monaural hearing through cochlear implant.

Speech Understanding With Bimodal Stimulation Is Determined by Monaural Signal to Noise Ratios: No Binaural Cue Processing Involved.

To investigate the mechanisms behind binaural and spatial effects in speech understanding for bimodal cochlear implant listeners. In particular, to test our hypothesis that their speech understanding can be characterized by means of monaural signal to noise ratios, rather than complex binaural cue processing such as binaural unmasking. We applied a semantic framework to characterize binaural and spatial effects in speech understanding on an extensive selection of the literature on bimodal listeners. In addition, we performed two experiments in which we measured speech understanding in different masker types (1) using head-related transfer functions, and (2) while adapting the broadband signal to noise ratios in both ears independently. We simulated bimodal hearing with a vocoder in one ear (the cochlear implant side) and a low-pass filter in the other ear (the hearing aid side). By design, the cochlear implant side was the main contributor to speech understanding in our simulation. We found that spatial release from masking can be explained as a simple trade-off between a monaural change in signal to noise at the cochlear implant side (quantified as the head shadow effect) and an opposite change in signal to noise at the hearing aid side (quantified as a change in bimodal benefit). In simulated bimodal listeners, we found that for every 1 dB increase in signal to noise ratio at the hearing aid side, the bimodal benefit improved by approximately 0.4 dB in signal to noise ratio. Although complex binaural cue processing is often implicated when discussing speech intelligibility in adverse listening conditions, performance can simply be explained based on monaural signal to noise ratios for bimodal listeners.

Aligning Hearing Aid and Cochlear Implant Improves Hearing Outcome in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.

Patients with unilateral deafness and residual hearing on the contralateral ear can benefit from a cochlear implant (CI) on one side and a hearing aid (HA) on the other. However, hearing improvement among these patients is heterogenous. Interindividual differences in bimodal benefit may be caused by a mismatch of CI and HA. The aim of this study was to clinically apply a HA fitting strategy and to evaluate hearing outcome with and without a dedicated bimodal fitting formula. Prospective non-randomized study. Tertiary referral center. Twelve patients using a CI processor and a conventional HA were enrolled. Before and after the new HA had been adjusted to the patient and linked to the CI, pure-tone audiometry and localization tests were performed. Speech perception was determined in quiet and noise. Tests were repeated after 6 and 12 weeks. To evaluate the subjective listening comfort two questionnaires (Oldenburg Inventory and HISQUI19) were assessed. Therapeutic. Word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise. Speech perception in noise improved significantly: directed suppression of noise helped to segregate the target speech signal from a mixture of sounds or competing speakers. Evaluation of the questionnaires revealed a positive subjective hearing experience compared with patients' initial settings of the devices. By linking CI and HA hearing and speech perception can be improved. However, good counselling at the outset is essential to obtain enhanced outcome.

Evaluation of a novel bimodal fitting formula in Advanced Bionics cochlear implant recipients

Purpose: The study’s objectives were to (1) evaluate benefit from a novel bimodal fitting formula (Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal Fitting Formula [APDB]), and (2) compare outcomes with APDB and a traditional fitting formula (NAL-NL2). Methods: This prospective study evaluated outcomes in ten adults with unilateral Advanced Bionics (AB) cochlear implants (CI). Participants were tested bimodally with NAL-NL2 and APDB programed on Naída Link UP HAs. Measures of speech perception, sound quality, and preference were obtained with two bimodal configurations (CI + HANAL-NL2 and CI + HAAPDB). Participants used the CI + HAAPDB configuration for an acclimation period, after which measures were repeated. Results: Significant bimodal benefit was measured from both HA fitting formulae for speech perception in noise compared to the CI-only condition. Improved individual outcomes with the APDB were observed, but group differences were not statistically significant. Participants reported subjective benefit from APDB on blind comparisons of preference and sound quality. Conclusions: Significant benefit was found with both bimodal conditions compared to the CI-only condition; however, bimodal speech perception results were not significantly different. Users reported benefit from the APDB formula over NAL-NL2 formula. Due to individual improved speech perception and overall subjective preference for APDB, clinicians should consider APDB with AB CI recipients.

Clinical Application of Spectral Modulation Detection: Speech Recognition Benefit for Combining a Cochlear Implant and Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between speech recognition benefit derived from the addition of a hearing aid (HA) to the nonimplanted ear (i.e., bimodal benefit) and spectral modulation detection (SMD) performance in the nonimplanted ear in a large clinical sample. An additional purpose was to investigate the influence of low-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) of the nonimplanted ear and age at implantation on the variance in bimodal benefit. Method Participants included 311 unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users who wore an HA in the nonimplanted ear. Participants completed speech recognition testing in quiet and in noise with the CI-alone and in the bimodal condition (i.e., CI and contralateral HA) and SMD in the nonimplanted ear. Results SMD performance in the nonimplanted ear was significantly correlated with bimodal benefit in quiet and in noise. However, this relationship was much weaker than previous reports with smaller samples. SMD, low-frequency PTA of the nonimplanted ear from 125 to 750 Hz, and age at implantation together accounted for, at most, 19.1% of the variance in bimodal benefit. Conclusions Taken together, SMD, low-frequency PTA, and age at implantation account for the greatest amount of variance in bimodal benefit than each variable alone. A large portion of variance (~80%) in bimodal benefit is not explained by these variables. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12185493.

Bimodal Benefits for Lexical Tone Recognition: An Investigation on Mandarin-speaking Preschoolers with a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Pitch perception is known to be difficult for individuals with cochlear implant (CI), and adding a hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear is potentially beneficial. The current study aimed to investigate the bimodal benefit for lexical tone recognition in Mandarin-speaking preschoolers using a CI and an HA in opposite ears. The child participants were required to complete tone identification in quiet and in noise with CI + HA in comparison with CI alone. While the bimodal listeners showed confusion between Tone 2 and Tone 3 in recognition, the additional acoustic information from the contralateral HA alleviated confusion between these two tones in quiet. Moreover, significant improvement was demonstrated in the CI + HA condition over the CI alone condition in noise. The bimodal benefit for individual subjects could be predicted by the low-frequency hearing threshold of the non-implanted ear and the duration of bimodal use. The findings support the clinical practice to fit a contralateral HA in the non-implanted ear for the potential benefit in Mandarin tone recognition in CI children. The limitations call for further studies on auditory plasticity on an individual basis to gain insights on the contributing factors to the bimodal benefit or its absence.

Mandarin lexical tone recognition in bimodal cochlear implant users

Objective: To assess the recognition of lexical tones in Mandarin-speaking bimodal cochlear implant (CI) subjects.Design: Lexical tone recognition in quiet and noise (SNR= +5 dB) was measured with electric stimulation (CI alone) or bimodal stimulation (CI + hearing aid (HA)). The recognition and confusion rates of the four tones (T1, T2, T3 and T4) were analysed. Spearman correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between hearing levels in the contralateral ear and bimodal benefits.Study sample: Twenty native Mandarin-speaking bimodal CI users, with ages ranging from 16–49 years.Results: Relative to the CI alone, mean tone recognition with the CI + HA improved significantly from 84.1–92.1% correct in quiet (+8 points) and from 57.9–73.1% correct in noise (+15.2 points). Tone confusions between T2 and T3 were the most prominent in all test conditions, and T4 tended to be labelled as T3 in noise. There was no significant correlation between the bimodal benefits for tone recognition and the unaided or HA-aided pure-tone thresholds at 0.25 kHz.Conclusion: Listeners with CI + HA exhibited significantly better tone recognition than with CI alone. The bimodal advantage for tone recognition was greater in noise than in quiet, perhaps due to a ceiling effect in quiet.

Musical Emotion Perception in Bimodal Patients: Relative Weighting of Musical Mode and Tempo Cues.

Several cues are used to convey musical emotion, the two primary being musical mode and musical tempo. Specifically, major and minor modes tend to be associated with positive and negative valence, respectively, and songs at fast tempi have been associated with more positive valence compared to songs at slow tempi (Balkwill and Thompson, 1999; Webster and Weir, 2005). In Experiment I, we examined the relative weighting of musical tempo and musical mode among adult cochlear implant (CI) users combining electric and contralateral acoustic stimulation, or “bimodal” hearing. Our primary hypothesis was that bimodal listeners would utilize both tempo and mode cues in their musical emotion judgments in a manner similar to normal-hearing listeners. Our secondary hypothesis was that low-frequency (LF) spectral resolution in the non-implanted ear, as quantified via psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs) at 262 and 440 Hz, would be significantly correlated with degree of bimodal benefit for musical emotion perception. In Experiment II, we investigated across-channel spectral resolution using a spectral modulation detection (SMD) task and neural representation of temporal fine structure via the frequency following response (FFR) for a 170-ms /da/ stimulus. Results indicate that CI-alone performance was driven almost exclusively by tempo cues, whereas bimodal listening demonstrated use of both tempo and mode. Additionally, bimodal benefit for musical emotion perception may be correlated with spectral resolution in the non-implanted ear via SMD, as well as neural representation of F0 amplitude via FFR – though further study with a larger sample size is warranted. Thus, contralateral acoustic hearing can offer significant benefit for musical emotion perception, and the degree of benefit may be dependent upon spectral resolution of the non-implanted ear.

Comparison of bimodal benefit for the use of DSL v5.0 and NAL-NL2 in cochlear implant listeners

Objective: For a group of bimodal subjects with moderate to severe hearing loss contralateral to the cochlear implant (CI), the bimodal benefit of the hearing aid (HA) gain prescriptions DSL v5.0, NAL-NL2 and the recipients’ own gain setting were assessed.Design: Speech perception in quiet and in noise as well as self-reported ratings of benefit were determined for all three gain-settings. Speech tests were performed in the bimodal, the HA alone and the CI alone condition. The bimodal benefit was assessed for each prescription as the difference score of the bimodal condition and the better ear.Study Sample: Twenty adults with post-lingual hearing loss.Results: Speech perception with DSL v5.0 was significantly higher compared to NAL-NL2 and the own prescription in both quiet and noise. The median bimodal benefit was highest for DSL v5.0 with an average of 15 percentage points for both words in quiet and sentences in noise.Conclusions: DSL v5.0 and NAL-NL2 are both suitable for HA fitting in bimodal users. For subjects with moderate to severe hearing loss and HA experience contralateral to the implanted side, DSL v5.0 may provide better speech perception and bimodal benefit.

Recipients With Limited Bimodal Benefit: HA or CROS

Recipients With Limited Bimodal Benefit: HA or CROS

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

Purpose The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit. Method This prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study. Results No differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization. Conclusion Our results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

Musical emotion perception in bimodal patients: Relationship between bimodal benefit and neural representation of temporal fine structure using Rhodes piano stimuli

Combining electric and acoustic hearing across ears allows significant “bimodal hearing” benefit for speech recognition, sound quality, and music perception. The degree of bimodal benefit for speech recognition and musical emotion perception is significantly correlated with neural representation of F0 envelope using the frequency following response (FFR) for a 170-ms /da/ stimulus (D’Onofrio et al., in prep). The purpose of the current study is to examine the relationship between bimodal benefit for musical emotion perception and neural representation of F0 using Rhodes piano stimuli at the following fundamental frequencies: 98 Hz (G2), 262 Hz (C4), and 440 Hz (A4). Our hypotheses are (1) the correlation between bimodal benefit and neural representation of F0 and temporal fine structure will be strengthened via use of a “music” stimulus, compared to the /da/ “speech” stimulus, and (2) bimodal benefit for speech recognition will be better explained via FFR for speech stimuli. Stimuli were presented at 90 dB SPL to the non-implanted ear of bimodal listeners using magnetically shielded insert earphones. Implications regarding the clinical utility of FFR will be discussed, with particular attention given to its use as an objective measure of expected bimodal benefit for speech recognition and musical emotion perception.

Factors Affecting Bimodal Benefit in Pediatric Mandarin-Speaking Chinese Cochlear Implant Users.

While fundamental frequency (F0) cues are important to both lexical tone perception and multitalker segregation, F0 cues are poorly perceived by cochlear implant (CI) users. Adding low-frequency acoustic hearing via a hearing aid in the contralateral ear may improve CI users' F0 perception. For English-speaking CI users, contralateral acoustic hearing has been shown to improve perception of target speech in noise and in competing talkers. For tonal languages such as Mandarin Chinese, F0 information is lexically meaningful. Given competing F0 information from multiple talkers and lexical tones, contralateral acoustic hearing may be especially beneficial for Mandarin-speaking CI users' perception of competing speech. Bimodal benefit (CI+hearing aid - CI-only) was evaluated in 11 pediatric Mandarin-speaking Chinese CI users. In experiment 1, speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were adaptively measured using a modified coordinated response measure test; subjects were required to correctly identify 2 keywords from among 10 choices in each category. SRTs were measured with CI-only or bimodal listening in the presence of steady state noise (SSN) or competing speech with the same (M+M) or different voice gender (M+F). Unaided thresholds in the non-CI ear and demographic factors were compared with speech performance. In experiment 2, SRTs were adaptively measured in SSN for recognition of 5 keywords, a more difficult listening task than the 2-keyword recognition task in experiment 1. In experiment 1, SRTs were significantly lower for SSN than for competing speech in both the CI-only and bimodal listening conditions. There was no significant difference between CI-only and bimodal listening for SSN and M+F (p > 0.05); SRTs were significantly lower for CI-only than for bimodal listening for M+M (p < 0.05), suggesting bimodal interference. Subjects were able to make use of voice gender differences for bimodal listening (p < 0.05) but not for CI-only listening (p > 0.05). Unaided thresholds in the non-CI ear were positively correlated with bimodal SRTs for M+M (p < 0.006) but not for SSN or M+F. No significant correlations were observed between any demographic variables and SRTs (p > 0.05 in all cases). In experiment 2, SRTs were significantly lower with two than with five keywords (p < 0.05). A significant bimodal benefit was observed only for the 5-keyword condition (p < 0.05). With the CI alone, subjects experienced greater interference with competing speech than with SSN and were unable to use voice gender difference to segregate talkers. For the coordinated response measure task, subjects experienced no bimodal benefit and even bimodal interference when competing talkers were the same voice gender. A bimodal benefit in SSN was observed for the five-keyword condition but not for the two-keyword condition, suggesting that bimodal listening may be more beneficial as the difficulty of the listening task increased. The present data suggest that bimodal benefit may depend on the type of masker and/or the difficulty of the listening task.

How to Optimally Fit a Hearing Aid for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review.

Bimodal hearing has shown to improve speech recognition in quiet and in noise and to improve sound localization compared with unilateral cochlear implant (CI) use alone. Fitting the CI and hearing aid (HA) separately has been described well, but HA fitting procedures for bimodal CI users are not well researched or widely accepted. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of different HA fitting strategies on auditory performance in bimodal CI users. Original articles, written in English, were identified through systematic searches in Medline (OvidSP), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed publisher, and Google Scholar. The quality of the studies was assessed on five aspects: methodologic quality (with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies score), number of subjects, quality of the description of contralateral hearing loss, quality of HA verification, and direct comparison of HA fitting procedures based on auditory performance. A total of 1665 records were retrieved, of which 17 were included for systematical reviews. Critical appraisal led to three high-quality studies, 10 medium-quality studies, and four low-quality studies. The results of the studies were structured according to four topics: frequency response, frequency translation/transposition, dynamic range compression, and loudness. In general, a bimodal benefit was found in most studies, using various strategies for the HA fitting. Using a standard prescription rule such as National Acoustics Laboratory formula-non-linear 1, National Acoustics Laboratory formula-non-linear 2, or desired sensation level is a good starting point in children and adults. Although a bimodal benefit was found in most studies, there is no clear evidence how certain choices in HA fitting contribute to optimal bimodal performance. A generally accepted HA prescription rule is an essential part of most fitting procedures used in the studies. Current evidence suggests that frequency lowering or transposition is not beneficial. Individual fine tuning based on loudness or general preference is often applied, but its additional value for auditory performance should be investigated more thoroughly. Good quality comparative studies are needed to further develop evidence-based fitting procedures in case of bimodal listening.

Bimodal Hearing in Individuals with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: Benefits, Challenges, and Management.

Binaural hearing offers numerous advantages over monaural hearing. While bilateral implants are a successful treatment option for some patients, many individuals choose to achieve binaural hearing by using a cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid. Compared with monaural hearing, benefits of bimodal hearing include improved speech perception in quiet and in noise, improved localization, and more natural sound quality. Despite the advantages, there exist disadvantages to bimodal hearing, primarily related to binaural integration. Management of these devices can be challenging in that the hearing aid and cochlear implant may be managed by different clinicians. When fitting devices, strategies are recommended to optimize the integration of input from both devices. In managing bimodal devices, recommended outcomes measures include those that would reflect bimodal benefit, such as speech understanding in noise and spatial sound quality perception.

Results in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients With Varied Asymmetric Hearing: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Speech Recognition, Localization, and Participant Report.

Asymmetric hearing with severe to profound hearing loss (SPHL) in one ear and better hearing in the other requires increased listening effort and is detrimental for understanding speech in noise and sound localization. Although a cochlear implant (CI) is the only treatment that can restore hearing to an ear with SPHL, current candidacy criteria often disallows this option for patients with asymmetric hearing. The present study aimed to evaluate longitudinal performance outcomes in a relatively large group of adults with asymmetric hearing who received a CI in the poor ear. Forty-seven adults with postlingual hearing loss participated. Test materials included objective and subjective measures meant to elucidate communication challenges encountered by those with asymmetric hearing. Test intervals included preimplant and 6 and 12 months postimplant. Preimplant testing was completed in participants' everyday listening condition: bilateral hearing aids (HAs) n = 9, better ear HA n = 29, and no HA n = 9; postimplant, each ear was tested separately and in the bimodal condition. Group mean longitudinal results in the bimodal condition postimplant compared with the preimplant everyday listening condition indicated significantly improved sentence scores at soft levels and in noise, improved localization, and higher ratings of communication function by 6 months postimplant. Group mean, 6-month postimplant results were significantly better in the bimodal condition compared with either ear alone. Audibility and speech recognition for the poor ear alone improved significantly with a CI compared with preimplant. Most participants had clinically meaningful benefit on most measures. Contributory factors reported for traditional CI candidates also impacted results for this population. In general, older participants had poorer bimodal speech recognition in noise and localization abilities than younger participants. Participants with early SPHL onset had better bimodal localization than those with later SPHL onset, and participants with longer SPHL duration had poorer CI alone speech understanding in noise but not in quiet. Better ear pure-tone average (PTA) correlated with all speech recognition measures in the bimodal condition. To understand the impact of better ear hearing on bimodal performance, participants were grouped by better ear PTA: group 1 PTA ≤40 dB HL (n = 19), group 2 PTA = 41 to 55 dB HL (n = 14), and group 3 PTA = 56 to 70 dB HL (n = 14). All groups showed bimodal benefit on speech recognition measures in quiet and in noise; however, only group 3 obtained benefit when noise was toward the CI ear. All groups showed improved localization and ratings of perceived communication. Receiving a CI for the poor ear was an effective treatment for this population. Improved audibility and speech recognition were evident by 6 months postimplant. Improvements in sound localization and self-reports of communication benefit were significant and not related to better ear hearing. Participants with more hearing in the better ear (group 1) showed less bimodal benefit but greater bimodal performance for speech recognition than groups 2 and 3. Test batteries for this population should include quality of life measures, sound localization, and adaptive speech recognition measures with spatially separated noise to capture the hearing loss deficits and treatment benefits reported by this patient population.

Temporal Fine Structure Processing, Pitch, and Speech Perception in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.

The aim of the study was to investigate the link between temporal fine structure (TFS) processing, pitch, and speech perception performance in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients, including bimodal listeners who may benefit better low-frequency (LF) temporal coding in the contralateral ear. The study participants were 43 adult CI recipients (23 unilateral, 6 bilateral, and 14 bimodal listeners). Two new LF pitch perception tests-harmonic intonation (HI) and disharmonic intonation (DI)-were used to evaluate TFS sensitivity. HI and DI were designed to estimate a difference limen for discrimination of tone changes based on harmonic or inharmonic pitch glides. Speech perception was assessed using the newly developed Italian Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving level (STARR) test where sentences relevant to everyday contexts were presented at low, medium, and high levels in a fluctuating background noise to estimate a speech reception threshold (SRT). Although TFS and STARR performances in the majority of CI recipients were much poorer than those of hearing people reported in the literature, a considerable intersubject variability was observed. For CI listeners, median just noticeable differences were 27.0 and 147.0 Hz for HI and DI, respectively. HI outcomes were significantly better than those for DI. Median STARR score was 14.8 dB. Better performers with speech reception thresholds less than 20 dB had a median score of 8.6 dB. A significant effect of age was observed for both HI/DI tests, suggesting that TFS sensitivity tended to worsen with increasing age. CI pure-tone thresholds and duration of profound deafness were significantly correlated with STARR performance. Bimodal users showed significantly better TFS and STARR performance for bimodal listening than for their CI-only condition. Median bimodal gains were 33.0 Hz for the HI test and 95.0 Hz for the DI test. DI outcomes in bimodal users revealed a significant correlation with unaided hearing thresholds for octave frequencies lower than 1000 Hz. Median STARR scores were 17.3 versus 8.1 dB for CI only and bimodal listening, respectively. STARR performance was significantly correlated with HI findings for CI listeners and with those of DI for bimodal listeners. LF pitch perception was found to be abnormal in the majority of adult CI recipients, confirming poor TFS processing of CIs. Similarly, the STARR findings reflected a common performance deterioration with the HI/DI tests, suggesting the cause probably being a lack of access to TFS information. Contralateral hearing aid users obtained a remarkable bimodal benefit for all tests. Such results highlighted the importance of TFS cues for challenging speech perception and the relevance to everyday listening conditions. HI/DI and STARR tests show promise for gaining insights into how TFS and speech perception are being limited and may guide the customization of CI program parameters and support the fine tuning of bimodal listening.