Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: A 6-month comparative study

Morera, C; Manrique, Manuel; Ramos, Ángel; García-Ibáñez, L; Cavallé, Laura; Huarte, Alicia; Castillo, Carmen Lidia Aguiar; Estrada, Elisabeth

doi:10.1080/00016480510027493

Cited by 122 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…HS is a physical phenomenon, which occurs when speech and noise sources are spatially separated. The intensity of the noise source is reduced at the ear further from the source due to attenuation by the head and shoulders, hence benefiting the contralateral ear with a better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for speech perception (e.g., see Morera et al, 2005). SQ relies upon the ability of the central auditory system to compare interaural differences when the speech and noise sources are spatially separated and to selectively target the speech signal for improved intelligibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was true both when speech and noise were spatially coincident and spatially separated. Morera et al (2005) also evaluated speech perception at a fixed SNR for 12 adults with bimodal devices at 6 months post-implantation. Contrary to the large effect of HS observed in studies with bilateral CIs, Morera et al (2005) reported no evidence of a significant effect of HS for bimodal listeners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices

Kokkinakis

Pak

2013

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates to what extent users of bilateral and bimodal fittings should expect to benefit from all three different binaural advantages found to be present in normal-hearing listeners. Head-shadow and binaural squelch are advantages occurring under spatially separated speech and noise, while summation emerges when speech and noise coincide in space. For 14 bilateral or bimodal listeners, speech reception thresholds in the presence of four-talker babble were measured in sound-field under various speech and noise configurations. Statistical analysis revealed significant advantages of head-shadow and summation for both bilateral and bimodal listeners. Squelch was significant only for bimodal listeners.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices

Kokkinakis

Pak

2013

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early reports suggested that listening with a CI and an HA might be better than listening with either device alone [54][55]. These two inputs apparently can be combined successfully and provide beneficial binaural hearing [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. In a small sample, speech recognition in quiet and noise was reported for three subjects who had used a CI and an HA for more than 5 years [64].…”

Section: Speech Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Restoring hearing symmetry with two cochlear implants or one cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid

Firszt

Reeder²,

Skinner³

2008

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-With today's technology and the demonstrated success of cochlear implantation, along with expanded candidacy criteria, the opportunity to provide optimal hearing to both ears for individuals with severe-to-profound hearing loss is greater than ever. This article reviews the advantages of binaural hearing and the disadvantages of hearing with only one ear or hearing with two ears with significantly different sound thresholds. A case study is presented that demonstrates the benefit of bimodal hearing (i.e., a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and a contralateral hearing aid [HA]) in a nontraditional CI candidate with asymmetrical hearing thresholds. Then, selected studies in adult recipients who use a CI and contralateral HA or who use two CIs are summarized. The data overall demonstrate that bilateral CI recipients, traditional bimodal recipients, and nontraditional bimodal recipients experience substantial binaural hearing advantages, including improved speech recognition in noise, localization, and functional everyday communication. These results indicate that bilateral stimulation of the auditory system through a CI and contralateral HA or two CIs is beneficial and should become standard clinical practice.

show abstract

“…The benefits of cochlear implantation have been well documented and include better speech perception in quiet and noise (e.g., Parkinson et al, 2002;Tyler et al, 1995Tyler et al, , 2002Waltzman et al, 1999) and an improved quality of life (e.g., Maillet et al, 1995;Summerfield et al, 2006;Vermeire et al, 2005). Research also suggests that bilateral device use through two cochlear implants (CI+CI) or a cochlear implant plus hearing aid in opposite ears (CI+HA) provides important auditory cues to both ears, thus allowing for potential binaural hearing advantages (Armstrong et al, 1997;Ching et al, 2001Ching et al, , 2004Ching et al, , 2005Dorman et al, 2004;Dunn et al, 2005;Litovsky et al, 2006;Luntz et al, 2005;Laszig et al, 2004;Morera et al, 2005;Shallop et al, 1992;Tyler et al, 2002Tyler et al, , 2006Tyler et al, , 2007van Hoesel & Tyler, 2003;Waltzman et al 1992). As shown by Zurek (1993), the advantages of hearing with two ears include binaural summation (or combining the intensity or loudness a signal when presented bilaterally versus monaurally), binaural squelch (or combining inputs from the two ears to improve the overall signal-to-noise ratio), and localization (using differences in time, intensity, and spectrum across ears to compare the location of a sound source in space).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

Perreau¹,

Bentler²,

Tyler³

2013

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency-lowering signal processing in hearing aids has re-emerged as an option to improve audibility of the high frequencies by expanding the input bandwidth.However, few studies have investigated the usefulness of the scheme as a bimodal option for cochlear implant users. In this study, that question was posed. It was hypothesized that, following fitting and a period of adjustment to a frequency-compression hearing aid, sound localization and speech perception would be improved compared to conventional amplification. More specifically, more high-frequency cues would be perceived in the hearing aid ear using frequency compression, thereby providing better sensitivity to interaural level differences when a cochlear implant is used contralaterally.There were two experiments in this study. In the first experiment, the goal was to determine if frequency compression was a better bimodal option than conventional amplification. Performance was assessed on tests of sound localization, speech perception in a background of noise, and using questionnaires. Ten subjects with a cochlear implant plus hearing aid participated in experiment one. In the second experiment, the goal was to determine the impact of frequency compression on speech perception in quiet. Consonant and vowel perception in quiet was assessed using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid. Seventeen adult subjects participated in the second experiment.In both experiments, subjects alternated daily between a frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid for two months. The parameters of frequency compression were set individually for each subject and audibility was measured for the frequency compression and conventional hearing aid programs by comparing estimations of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) using a modified algorithm (Bentler, R., Cole, B., Wu, Y-H. (2011, March). Deriving an audibility index for frequency-lowered hearing aids.Poster session presented at the meeting of the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, 2 AZ). In both experiments, the outcome measures were administered following the hearing aid fitting to establish baseline performance and after two months of use.Results revealed no significant difference between the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid on tests of localization and consonant recognition. Spondee-innoise and vowel perception scores were significantly higher with the conventional hearing aid compared to the frequency-compression hearing aid after two months of use.These results suggest that, for the subjects in this study, frequency compression is not a better bimodal option than conventional amplification. In addition, speech perception may be negatively influenced by frequency compression because formant frequencies are too severely compressed and can no longer be distinguished.

show abstract

Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: A 6-month comparative study

Cited by 122 publications

References 14 publications

Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices

Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices

Restoring hearing symmetry with two cochlear implants or one cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About