Head Shadow Research Articles

Improved Binaural Hearing Effects and Sound Source Localization in Listeners with Simulated Unilateral Conductive Hearing Loss: Effect of a Bone Conduction Device.

Objectives: It has been proven that patients with unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL) may encounter typical problems associated with asymmetric hearing, especially in challenging listening environments. In this study, we aimed to determine how UCHL affects speech recognition under multisource competing environments and the ability of sound source localization, as well as whether assistance with a bone conduction device (BCD) can confer hearing benefits in such listening tasks. Design: Acquired UCHL was simulated using an earplug combined with an earmuff in 10 listeners (mean age: 29.9 ± 4.77 years) with bilateral normal hearing (NH), and a within-subject repeated-measures design was used to compare hearing results among three listening conditions: NH (both ears open, C1), unilateral plug (UP) (simulated UCHL, C2), and UP + BCD (simulated UCHL aided with a BCD, C3). The speech reception threshold (SRT) of summation, squelch, and head shadow (HS) effects and the mean absolute error of sound source localization were used as markers for binaural hearing abilities. Results: BCD assistance (C3) improved the summation and HS effects in all listeners with simulated UCHL, resulting in a lower (i.e., better) SRT than that observed in C2; however, no significant differences in squelch effects were observed between C2 and C3. Notably, most listeners exhibited more accurate sound source localization in C3 than in C2. Further, BCD assistance mainly improved localization accuracy when the noise stimuli were presented at low intensities and on the hearing-impaired (plugged) side, suggesting that the benefits of BCD for sound localization are not based on the reacquisition of binaural processing. Conclusions: The current results have clinical implications for the promotion of BCDs in patients with UCHL, especially those with acquired UCHL who are unable to undergo surgery.

Single-Sided Deafness: A Narrative Review

Background and Aims: Single-sided deafness (SSD) is a severe type of hearing loss affecting one ear, and it frequently presents social difficulties for those affected. Head shadow effect and sound localisation play an important role in speech perception. Methods: Research articles on SSD were identified through an online search of PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and Google Scholar databases. Results: SSD affects daily activities and emotional or social well-being. It is necessary to get the early identification of the aetiology of SSD for prompt intervention. The aetiology of SSD can be determined with the use of investigations such as as genetic testing, serological testing, computed tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging, and DNA testing for viral infections. Rehabilitation options for patients with SSD include cochlear implants, bone-anchored hearing aids, and contralateral routing of sound. Individuals with SSD cochlear implants have strong auditory perception. The objective of this review article is to provide aetiology, clinical presentations, diagnosis and current treatment of SSD. Conclusion: Individuals with SSD commonly experience communication issues that have a substantial negative effect on their quality of life. Word discrimination is hampered by SSD, and this impairment varies depending on the affected ear’s residual hearing. Speech comprehension is frequently difficult for patients with severe SSD, especially in noisy environments.

Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: 12 Months Follow-up Results of a European Multicenter Evaluation.

People with single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have particular difficulty understanding speech in noisy listening situations and in sound localization. The objective of this multicenter study is to evaluate the effect of a cochlear implant (CI) in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), particularly regarding sound localization and speech intelligibility with additional interest in electric-acoustic pitch matching. A prospective longitudinal study at 7 European tertiary referral centers was conducted including 19 SSD and 16 AHL subjects undergoing cochlear implantation. Sound localization accuracy was investigated in terms of root mean square error and signed bias before and after implantation. Speech recognition in quiet and speech reception thresholds in noise for several spatial configurations were assessed preoperatively and at several post-activation time points. Pitch perception with CI was tracked using pitch matching. Data up to 12 months post activation were collected. In both SSD and AHL subjects, CI significantly improved sound localization for sound sources on the implant side, and thus overall sound localization. Speech recognition in quiet with the implant ear improved significantly. In noise, a significant head shadow effect was found for SSD subjects only. However, the evaluation of AHL subjects was limited by the small sample size. No uniform development of pitch perception with the implant ear was observed. The benefits shown in this study confirm and expand the existing body of evidence for the effectiveness of CI in SSD and AHL. Particularly, improved localization was shown to result from increased localization accuracy on the implant side.

Analysis of one-year outcomes after cochlear implantation in adults with single-sided deafness

Objectives: To investigate the outcomes of cochlear implantation in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant (CI) users with single-sided deafness (SSD). Methods: This study was a single-center prospective cohort study. Eleven Mandarin-speaking adult SSD patients who underwent CI implantation at Capital Medical University Beijing Tongren Hospital from August 2020 to October 2021 were recruited, including 6 males and 5 females, with the age ranging from 24 to 50 years old. In a sound field with 7 loudspeakers distributed at 180°, we measured root-mean-square error(RMSE)in SSD patients at the preoperative, 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month after switch-on to assess the improvement of sound source localization. The Mandarin Speech Perception (MSP) was used in the sound field to test the speech reception threshold (SRT) of SSD patients under different signal-to-noise locations in a steady-state noise under conditions of CI off and CI on, to reflect the head shadow effect(SSSDNNH), binaural summation effect(S0N0) and squelch effect(S0NSSD). The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to assess changes in tinnitus severity and tinnitus loudness in SSD patients at each time point. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale(SSQ) and the Nijmegen Cochlear Implantation Scale (NCIQ) were used to assess the subjective benefits of spatial speech perception and quality of life in SSD patients after cochlear implantation. SPSS 19.0 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: SSD patients showed a significant improvement in the poorer ear in hearing thresholds with CI-on compared with CI-off; The ability to localize the sound source was significantly improved, with statistically significant differences in RMSE at each follow-up time compared with the preoperative period (P<0.05). In the SSSDNNH condition, which reflects the head shadow effect, the SRT in binaural hearing was significantly improved by 6.5 dB compared with unaided condition, and the difference was statistically significant (t=6.25, P=0.001). However, there was no significant improvement in SRT between the binaural hearing condition and unaided conditions in the S0N0 and S0NSSD conditions (P>0.05). The total score of THI and three dimensions were significant decreased (P<0.05). Tinnitus VAS scores were significantly lower in binaural hearing compared to the unaided condition (P<0.001). The total score of SSQ, and the scores of speech and spatial dimensions were significant improved in binaural hearing compared to the unaided condition (P<0.001). There was no statistical difference in NCIQ questionnaire scores between preoperative and postoperative (P>0.05), and only the self-efficacy subscore showed a significant increase(Z=-2.497,P=0.013). Conclusion: CI could help Mandarin-speaking SSD patients restore binaural hearing to some extent, improve sound localization and speech recognition in noise. In addition, CI in SSD patients could suppress tinnitus, reduce the loudness of tinnitus, and improve subjective perceptions of spatial hearing and quality of life.

Objective and Subjective Measures of Spatial Hearing in Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users with Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss

Purpose: The ability to benefit from spatial separation between target and masker signals is important in multi-sound source listening environments. The goal of this study was to measure the spatial release from masking (SRM) in unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users with bilateral profound hearing loss. We also determined the relationships between the SRMs and the self-reported spatial hearing abilities.Methods: Fourteen unilateral CI users with bilateral profound hearing loss participated in this study. The target sentence was always presented to the front of the listener, and the nonfluctuating speech-shaped noise (SSN) or fluctuating speech noise was either co-located with the target (speech at 0°, noise at 0°, S0N0) or spatially separated at ± 90°. The SRM was quantified as the difference between speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) in the co-located and spatially separated conditions. The self-reported spatial hearing abilities were also measured using validated subjective questionnaires.Results: Overall, the SRTs were lower (better) with SSN than with fluctuating speech noise. When the noise was presented to the non-CI ear (speech at 0°, noise at non-CI ear, S0Nnonci), speech-in-noise recognition was the greatest due to head shadow or better-ear listening effect, resulting in the SRMs of approximately 5~6 dB regardless of noise type. When the noise was given to the CI ear (speech at 0°, noise at CI ear, S0Nci), some individuals exhibited positive SRMs (3~8 dB), while others showed negative SRMs, leading to little SRMs overall. When the SSN was given, subjects with less SRMs (less spatial separation benefits on the objective test) reported greater subjective spatial hearing difficulties.Conclusion: The spatial hearing of unilateral CI users varied by the position of the sound source. Listeners' spatial hearing abilities, which are unpredictable from clinical routine tests, need to be assessed by either objective or subjective measures.

Binaural hearing in monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with unilateral Bonebridge.

To determine the benefits of binaural hearing rehabilitation in patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss treated with a unilateral bone conduction implant (BCI). This monocentric study includes 7 patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss who underwent surgical implantation of a unilateral BCI (Bonebridge, Med-El). An ITA Matrix test was performed by each patient included in the study - without and with the BCI and in three different settings - to determine the summation effect, squelch effect and head shadow effect. Subjective hearing benefits were assessed using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire. The difference in signal to noise ratio of patients without and with BCI was 0.79 dB in the summation setting (p < 0.05), 4.62 dB in the head shadow setting (p < 0.05) and 1.53 dB (p = 0.063) in the squelch setting. The APHAB questionnaire revealed a subjective discomfort in the presence of unexpected sounds in patients using a unilateral BCI (aversiveness score) compared to the same environmental situations without BCI, with a mean discomfort score of 69.00% (SD ± 21.24%) with monaural BCI versus 25.67% (SD ± 16.70%) without BCI (difference: -43.33%, p < 0.05). In terms of global score, patients wearing a unilateral Bonebridge implant did not show any significant differences compared to those without hearing aid (difference: -4.00%, p = 0.310). Our study shows that the use of a unilateral BCI in patients affected by monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss can improve speech perception under noise conditions due to the summation effect and to the decrease of the head shadow effect. However, since monaural BCIs might lead to discomfort under noise conditions in some subjects, a pre-operative assessment of the possible individual benefit of a monaural BCI should be carried out in patients affected by unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss in order to investigate the possible additional effect of the fitting of hearing aids.

An audibility model of the headband trial with a bone conduction device in single-sided deaf subjects

Objective Modelling the head-shadow effect compensation and speech recognition outcomes, we aimed to study the benefits of a bone conduction device (BCD) during the headband trial for single-sided deafened (SSD) subjects. Design This study is based on a database of individual patient measurements, fitting parameters, and acoustic BCD properties retrospectively measured on a skull simulator or from existing literature. The sensation levels of the Bone-Conduction and Air-Conduction sound paths were compared, modelling three spatial conditions with speech in quiet. We calculated the phoneme score using the Speech Intelligibility Index for the three conditions in quiet and seven in noise. Study sample Eighty-five SSD adults fitted with BCD during headband trial. Results According to our model, most subjects did not achieve a full head-shadow effect compensation with the signal at the BCD side and in front. The modelled speech recognition in the quiet conditions did not improve with the BCD on the headband. In noise, we found a slight improvement in some specific conditions and minimal worsening in others. Conclusions Based on an audibility model, this study challenges the fundamentals of a BCD headband trial in SSD subjects. Patients should be counselled regarding the potential outcome and alternative approaches.

Masked Speech Perception with Bone Conduction Device, Contralateral Routing of Signals Hearing Aid, and Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Single-Sided Deafness: A Prospective Hearing Device Comparison using a Unified Testing Framework

Introduction: For the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD), common treatment choices include a contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aid, a bone conduction device (BCD), and a cochlear implant (CI). The primary aim of this study was to compare speech understanding in noise and binaural benefits in adults with postlingual SSD between preoperative unaided baseline, preoperative CROS and BCD trial devices, and CI, following recommendations from a consensus protocol. In addition, we investigated the effect of masker type on speech understanding. Methods: This was a prospective study with twelve participants. Binaural effects of head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking were assessed by measuring speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in five different spatial target-masker configurations using two different maskers: two-talker babble (TTB), and speech-shaped noise (SSN). Preoperatively, participants were assessed unaided and with CROS and BCD trial devices. After cochlear implantation, participants were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation. Results: For TTB, significant improvements in SRT with a CI relative to preoperatively unaided were found in all spatial configurations. With CI at 6 months, median benefits were 7.8 dB in SSSDNAH and 5.1 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 3.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), and 4.6 dB in S0NSSD and 5.1 dB in SAHNSSD (squelch). CROS yielded a significant head shadow benefit of 2.4 dB in SSSDNAH and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.5 dB in S0NSSD and SAHNSSD, but no summation effect. With BCD, there was a significant summation benefit of 1.5 dB, but no head shadow nor squelch effect. For SSN, significant improvements in SRT with CI compared to preoperatively unaided were found in three spatial configurations. Median benefits with CI at 6 months were: 8.5 dB in SSSDNAH and 4.6 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 1.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), but no squelch. CROS showed a significant head shadow benefit of 1.7 dB in SSSDNAH, but no summation effect, and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.9 dB in S0NSSD and 3.2 dB in SAHNSSD. With BCD, no binaural effect was obtained. Longitudinally, we found significant head shadow benefits with a CI in SSSDNAH in both maskers at all postoperative intervals and in S0NAH at 3 and 6 months post-activation. Conclusion: With a CI, a clear benefit for masked speech perception was observed for all binaural effects. Benefits with CROS and BCD were more limited. CROS usage was detrimental to the squelch effect.

Single-Sided Deafness and Hearing Rehabilitation Modalities: Contralateral Routing of Signal Devices, Bone Conduction Devices, and Cochlear Implants.

Single sided deafness (SSD) is characterized by significant sensorineural hearing loss, severe or profound, in only one ear. SSD adversely affects various aspects of auditory perception, including causing impairment in sound localization, difficulties with speech comprehension in noisy environments, and decreased spatial awareness, resulting in a significant decline in overall quality of life (QoL). Several treatment options are available for SSD, including cochlear implants (CI), contralateral routing of signal (CROS), and bone conduction devices (BCD). The lack of consensus on outcome domains and measurement tools complicates treatment comparisons and decision-making. This narrative overview aims to summarize the treatment options available for SSD in adult and pediatric populations, discussing their respective advantages and disadvantages. Rerouting devices (CROS and BCD) attenuate the effects of head shadow and improve sound awareness and signal-to-noise ratio in the affected ear; however, they cannot restore binaural hearing. CROS devices, being non-implantable, are the least invasive option. Cochlear implantation is the only strategy that can restore binaural hearing, delivering significant improvements in speech perception, spatial localization, tinnitus control, and overall QoL. Comprehensive preoperative counseling, including a discussion of alternative technologies, implications of no treatment, expectations, and auditory training, is critical to optimizing therapeutic outcomes.

Factors Predictive of Binaural Hearing Restoration by Cochlear Implant in Single-Sided Deafness

Introduction: Cochlear implants (CIs) can restore binaural hearing in cases of single-sided deafness (SSD). However, studies with a high level of evidence in support of this phenomenon are lacking. The aim of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of CIs using several spatialized speech-in-noise tests and to identify potential predictors of successful surgery. Methods: Ten cases underwent standard CI surgery (MEDEL-Flex24). The speech-in-noise test was used in three different spatial configurations. The noise was presented from the front (N0), toward the CI (NCI), and toward the ear (Near), while the speech was always from the front (S0). For each test, the speech-to-noise ratio at 50% intelligibility (SNR50) was evaluated. Seven different effects were assessed (summation, head shadow [HS], speech released of masking [SRM], and squelch for the CI and for the ear). Results: A significant summation effect of 1.5 dB was observed. Contralateral PTA was positively correlated with S0N0-B and S0NCI-B (CIon and unplugged ear). S0N0-B results were positively correlated with S0N0-CIoff (p < 0.0001) and with S0Near-CIoff results (p = 0.004). A significant positive correlation was found between delay post-activation and HS gain for the CI (p = 0.005). Finally, the HS was negatively correlated with the squelch effect for the ear. Conclusion: CI benefits patients with SSD in noise and can improve the threshold for detecting low-level noise. Contralateral PTA could predict good postoperative results. Simple tests performed preoperatively can predict the likelihood of surgical success in reversing SSD.

Cochlear implantation in unilateral hearing loss: impact of short- to medium-term auditory deprivation.

Single sided deafness (SSD) results in profound cortical reorganization that presents clinically with a significant impact on sound localization and speech comprehension. Cochlear implantation (CI) has been approved for two manufacturers' devices in the United States to restore bilateral function in SSD patients with up to 10 years of auditory deprivation. However, there is great variability in auditory performance and it remains unclear how auditory deprivation affects CI benefits within this 10-year window. This prospective study explores how measured auditory performance relates to real-world experience and device use in a cohort of SSD-CI subjects who have between 0 and 10 years of auditory deprivation. Subjects were assessed before implantation and 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-CI activation via Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word recognition and Arizona Biomedical Institute (AzBio) sentence recognition in varying spatial speech and noise presentations that simulate head shadow, squelch, and summation effects (S0N0, SSSDNNH, SNHNSSD; 0 = front, SSD = impacted ear, NH = normal hearing ear). Patient-centered assessments were performed using Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ), and Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3). Device use data was acquired from manufacturer software. Further subgroup analysis was performed on data stratified by <5 years and 5-10 years duration of deafness. In the SSD ear, median (IQR) CNC word scores pre-implant and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-implant were 0% (0-0%), 24% (8-44%), 28% (4-44%), and 18% (7-33%), respectively. At 6 months post-activation, AzBio scores in S0N0 and SSSDNNH configurations (n = 25) demonstrated statistically significant increases in performance by 5% (p = 0.03) and 20% (p = 0.005), respectively. The median HUI3 score was 0.56 pre-implant, lower than scores for common conditions such as anxiety (0.68) and diabetes (0.77), and comparable to stroke (0.58). Scores improved to 0.83 (0.71-0.91) by 3 months post-activation. These audiologic and subjective benefits were observed even in patients with longer durations of deafness. By merging CI-associated changes in objective and patient-centered measures of auditory function, our findings implicate central mechanisms of auditory compensation and adaptation critical in auditory performance after SSD-CI and quantify the extent to which they affect the real-world experience reported by individuals.

Comparison of Active Bone Conduction Hearing Implant Systems in Unilateral and Bilateral Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss.

To assess and compare binaural benefits and subjective satisfaction of active bone conduction implant (BCI) in patients with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with bilateral BCI and patients with monaural conductive hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI. ITA Matrix test was performed both on patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural bone conduction hearing implant (Bonebridge, Med-El) before and after implantation of contralateral bone conduction hearing implant and on patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss before and after implantation of monaural BCI. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was administered to both groups of subjects and the results were compared with each other. Patients of group 1 reported a difference of 4.66 dB in the summation setting compared to 0.79 dB of group 2 (p < 0.05). In the squelch setting, group 1 showed a difference of 2.42 dB compared to 1.53 dB of group 2 (p = 0.85). In the head shadow setting, patients of group 1 reported a difference of 7.5 dB, compared to 4.61 dB of group 2 (p = 0.34). As for the APHAB questionnaire, group 1 reported a mean global score difference of 11.10% while group 2 showed a difference of -4.00%. Bilateral BCI in patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss might show more advantages in terms of sound localisation, speech perception in noise and subjective satisfaction if compared to unilateral BCI fitting in patients affected by unilateral conductive hearing impairment. This may be explained by the different individual transcranial attenuation of each subject, which might lead to different outcomes in terms of binaural hearing achievement. On the other hand, patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI achieved good results in terms of binaural hearing and for this reason, there is no absolute contraindication to implantation in those patients.

Assessment of Binaural Benefits in Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

The purpose of this study was to (a) investigate which speech material is most appropriate as stimulus in head shadow effect (HSE) and binaural squelch (SQ) tests, (b) obtain normative values of both tests using the material decided to be optimal, and (c) explore the results in bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users. Study participants consisted of 30 normal-hearing (NH) persons and 34 bilateral CI users. This study consisted of three phases. In the first phase, three different speech materials (1) monosyllabic words, (2) spondee words, and (3) sentences were compared in terms of (a) effect size, (b) test-retest reliability, and (c) interindividual variability. In the second phase, the speech material selected in the first phase was used to test a further 24 NHs to obtain normative values for both tests. In the third phase, tests were administered to a further 23 bilateral CI users, together with localization test and the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale. The results of the first phase indicated that spondees and sentences were more robust materials compared with monosyllables. Although the effect size and interindividual variability were comparable for spondees and sentences, sentences had higher test-retest reliability in this sample of CI users. With sentences, the mean (± standard deviation) HSE and SQ in the NH group were 58 ± 14% and 22 ± 11%, respectively. In the CI group, the mean HSE and SQ were 49 ± 13% and 13 ± 14%, respectively. There were no statistically significant correlations between the test results and the interval between the implantations, the length of binaural listening experience, or the asymmetry between the ears. Sentences are preferred as stimulus material in the binaural HSE and SQ tests. Normative data are given for HSE and SQ with the LiCoS (linguistically controlled sentences) test. HSE is present for all bilateral CI users, whereas SQ is present in approximately seven out of 10 cases.

The Benefit of Binaural Hearing Among Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss

The performance of binaural processing may be disturbed in the presence of hearing loss, especially of sensorineural type. To assess the impact of hearing loss on speech perception in noise regarding binaural processing, series of speech recognition measurements in controlled laboratory conditions were carried out. The spatial conditions were simulated using dummy head recordings played back on headphones. The Intelligibility Level Difference (ILD) was determined by measuring the change in the speech reception thresholds (SRT) between two configurations of a masking signal source (N) and a speech source (S), namely the S0N90 condition (where numbers stand for angles in horizontal plane) and the co-located condition (S0N0). To disentangle the head shadow effect (better ear effect) from binaural processing in the brain, the difference between binaural and monaural S0N90 condition (so-called Binaural Intelligibility Level Difference, BILD) value was calculated. Measurements were performed with a control group of normal-hearing listeners and a group of sensorineural hearing-impaired subjects. In all conditions performance of the hearing-impaired listeners was significantly lower than normal-hearing ones, resulting in higher SRT values (3 dB difference in the S0N0 configuration, 7.6 dB in S0N90 and 5 dB in monaural S0N90). The SRT improvement due to the spatial separation of target and masking signal (ILD) was also higher in the control group (8.1 dB) than in hearing-impaired listeners (3.5 dB). Moreover, a significant deterioration of the binaural processing described by BILD was found in people with sensorineural deficits. This parameter for normal-hearing listeners reached a value of 3 to 6 dB (4.6 dB on average) and decreased more than two times in the hearing-impaired group to 1.9 dB on average (with a deviation of 1.4 dB). These findings could not be explained by individual average hearing threshold (standard in audiological diagnostics) only. The outcomes indicate that there is a contribution of suprathershold deficits and it may be useful to consider binaural SRT measurements in noise in addition to the pure tone audiometry resulting in better diagnostics and hearing aid fitting.

Relating monaural and binaural envelope processing abilities to spatial release from masking

The difference in speech identification thresholds between colocated condition (when the target and the maskers are placed at the same location) and spatially separated condition (when target and the maskers are symmetrically separated) is quantified as Spatial Release from Masking (SRM). SRM is thought to be a combination of monaural and binaural advantages arising from spatially separating the target from the maskers. Monaural contributions are from the head shadow effect whereas the binaural contributions are from processing the interaural differences between the two ears. However, the exact contributions of the monaural and binaural advantage to SRM is unknown. Here, we present data on monaural and binaural envelope processing abilities and their relationship to SRM on a large cohort of young normal hearing listeners. Monaural envelope processing ability was measured using the envelope regularity discrimination task (Moore et al., 2019). Sensitivity to ITD-envelopes was used to quantify binaural envelope processing ability. SRM was measured using coordinate response measure sentences. The relationship between SRM, envelope regularity index, and ITD thresholds along with the monaural and binaural envelope processing abilities to SRM will be discussed.

The Prevalence of Hearing Aid Use in Children With Single-Sided Sensorineural Deafness in Oxfordshire

The Prevalence of Hearing Aid Use in Children With Single-Sided Sensorineural Deafness in Oxfordshire

The right ear advantage – a perspective from speech perception in noise test

Objective So far, binaural summation for speech stimuli has been less evaluated in the literature, without the head shadow effect and spatial release from masking. Moreover, the right ear advantage has been shown mostly in the dichotic listening situation, but with conflicting results in the monaural/binaural listening condition. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate binaural hearing advantage utilizing only binaural summation without other factors and to evaluate the right ear advantage in the monaural listening situation. Methods Thirty-seven participants with normal hearing in the range of 0.125–20 kHz participated current study. Evaluation of speech perception in noise (SPIN) performances were conducted by Matrix test. Participants assessed in three different conditions including the right ear condition, the left ear condition and the binaural condition. Test order of the ears was counterbalanced and noises presented ipsilateral for monaural conditions. Results The lowest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values needed for understanding speech in noise were statistically significantly lower in binaural listening conditions compared to monaural listening conditions. In monaural listening conditions, the SNR value needed to understand speech in noise in the right ear was statistically significantly lower than in the left ear. Conclusion The results showed that the rehabilitation/habilitation of hearing-impairment patient should consider binaural amplification options to improve SPIN. In case of the symmetric hearing loss with the encountering compulsory situations which bring about the necessity to use only one ear, then right ear preference for amplification devices can provide better SPIN performance.

Residual Hearing Does Not Influence the Effectiveness of Beamforming when Using a Cochlear Implant in Conjunction with Contralateral Routing of Signals

Introduction: Contralateral routing of signals (CROS) overcomes the head shadow effect by redirecting speech signals from the contralateral ear to the better-hearing cochlear implant (CI) ear. Here we tested the performance of an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB) and a fixed binaural beamformer (BB) using the CROS system of Advanced Bionics. Methods: In a group of 17 unilateral CI users, we evaluated the benefits of MB and BB for speech recognition by measuring speech reception threshold (SRT) with and without beamforming. MB and BB were additionally evaluated with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements using a KEMAR manikin. We also assessed the effect of residual hearing in the CROS ear on the benefits of MB and BB. Speech was delivered in front of the listener in a background of homogeneous 8-talker babble noise. Results: With CI-CROS in omnidirectional settings with the T-mic active on the CI as a reference, BB significantly improved SRT by 1.4 dB, whereas MB yielded no significant improvements. The difference in effects on SRT between the two beamformers was, however, not significant. SNR effects were substantially larger, at 2.1 dB for MB and 5.8 dB for BB. CI-CROS with default omnidirectional settings also improved SRT and SNR by 1 dB over CI alone. Residual hearing did not significantly affect beamformer performance. Discussion: We recommend the use of BB over MB for CI-CROS users. Residual hearing in the CROS ear is not a limiting factor for fitting a CROS device, although a bimodal option should be considered.

Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Adults With Single-Sided Deafness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

To assess spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) who underwent cochlear implantation. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from January 2008 to September 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies reporting spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients (≥18 yr old) with SSD were evaluated. Study characteristics, demographic data, spatial hearing (speech recognition in noise, sound source localization), tinnitus (severity, loudness), and quality-of-life outcomes were collected. From an initial search of 1,147 articles, 36 studies that evaluated CI use in 796 unique adults with SSD (51.3 ± 12.4 yr of age at time of implantation) were included. The mean duration of deafness was 6.2 ± 9.6 years. There was evidence of improvement for speech recognition in noise using different target-to-masker spatial configurations, with the largest benefit observed for target-to-masker configurations assessing head shadow (mean, 1.87-6.2 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Sound source localization, quantified as root-mean-squared error, improved with CI use (mean difference [MD], -25.3 degrees; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -35.9 to -14.6 degrees; p < 0.001). Also, CI users reported a significant reduction in tinnitus severity as measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (MD, -29.97; 95% CI, -43.9 to -16.1; p < 0.001) and an improvement in spatial hearing abilities as measured with the Spatial, Speech, and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire (MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Cochlear implantation and CI use consistently offer improvements in speech recognition in noise, sound source localization, tinnitus, and perceived quality of life in adults with SSD.

Binaural Hearing Using the ADHEAR Bone Conduction System in the Monaurally Occluded Ear

Introduction: The study aimed to investigate binaural cues in the rehabilitation of unilateral occluded ears with a bone conduction hearing aid. Methods: The study sample consisted of 40 adult volunteers with normal hearing. Unilateral pseudo-conductive hearing loss was induced by inserting an earplug into the external auditory canal (EAC) and silicone material in the concha for ear impression. The adaptive speech-in-noise test (Italian Matrix test) was performed in three spatial orientations to assess binaural cues (summation, squelch, and head shadow effects). All evaluations were performed in the normal condition, after EAC occlusion, and after application of an adhesive bone conduction hearing aid. Binaural contrast differences were calculated in the three conditions. Results: In the EAC occlusion condition, there was a significant increase in the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in both the S₀N₀ (2.4 dB) and the S₉₀N₋₉₀ (7.7 dB) settings, and a slight albeit significant increase in the S₀N₉₀ setting (1.35 dB). After fitting the BC hearing aid, there was a reduction of −1.8 dB SNR (p < 0.001) in the S₀N₀ setting and −2 dB (p = 0.003) in the S₉₀N₋₉₀ setting. There was no improvement in the SNR (p = 0.405) in evaluation of the squelch effect (S₀N₉₀). These data were corroborated by a better binaural contrast due to a reduction in the summation effect in the monaural occlusion condition and a subsequent reduction in binaural contrast after fitting the hearing aid due to an increase in the summation effect (−2.5 dB vs. 0.3 dB; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Application of a bone conduction hearing aid in unilateral pseudo-conductive hearing loss strengthens speech recognition of noise by improving the summation effect and impeding the shadow effect of the head; however, there appears to be no improvement in speech perception in noise due to spatial release from masking.