Should Children Who Use Cochlear Implants Wear Hearing Aids in the Opposite Ear?

Ching, Teresa Y. C.; Psarros, Colleen; Hill, Mandy; Dillon, Harvey; Incerti, Paula

doi:10.1097/00003446-200110000-00002

Cited by 179 publications

(191 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

166

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is contrary to the findings of Gifford and colleagues [27], who reported that the CNC word recognition scores of a group of 36 adults using BMS (M = 71.8% correct) were significantly higher than those of a group of 162 adult using a unilateral CI (M = 55.7%). They are also not in agreement with the general consensus of within-group comparison studies, which indicate that CI recipients with residual hearing in their non-implanted ear obtain higher word recognition scores using BMS than when only using their CI [8,24,34]. However, upon further examination we found that the proportion of users in the BMS group (80%) who obtained scores of ≥ 80% correct was significantly larger than the proportion of CI-only (25%; p = 0.038) and HA-only users (16.7%; p = 0.022) who did the same.…”

Section: Speech Recognitioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

“…This may be due to a better perception of lower frequency phonemes with more information provided regarding the place and manner of articulation compared with a CI-alone [8].…”

Section: Speech Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This residual hearing can be utilised through the use of a hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear of a CI user; this is known as bimodal stimulation (BMS). The additional pitch cues provided via this low-frequency hearing have been associated with improved pitch perception [4,5,6], and improved speech recognition in quiet [7] and noise [6,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

Looi

Radford

2011

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe present study compared the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of normally-hearing children (n = 15) to children using a cochlear implant (CI) alone (n = 8), bilateral hearing aids (HAs) (n = 6), or bimodal stimulation (BMS) (n = 9). It was hypothesised that users of BMS would score higher on tasks of speech and pitch perception than children using a CI alone, but not children using HAs. MethodsParticipants were assessed on tasks of monosyllabic word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in quiet and noise (10dB signal-to-noise ratio), and a pitch ranking task using pairs of sung vowels one, half, and a quarter of an octave apart. ResultsThere were no significant differences between the mean percentage-correct scores of the four participant groups for either words in quiet or sentences in quiet and noise. However, the proportion of bimodal users who scored > 80% correct (80%) was significantly greater than the proportion of highscoring unilateral CI (25%) or bilateral HA users (17%). Contrary to expectations, there was also no significant difference between the pitch ranking scores of users of BMS and users of a CI alone for all three interval sizes (p < 0.05, RM-ANOVA). However participants using only acoustic hearing (i.e. the NH and HA groups) scored significantly higher than participants using electrical stimulation (i.e. the CI and BMS groups) on the pitch ranking task (p < 0.05; RM-ANOVA). ConclusionsContrary to findings in postlingually deafened adults, we found no significant bimodal advantage for pitch perception in prelingually deafened children. However, the performance of children using electrical stimulation was significantly poorer than children using only acoustic stimulation. Further research is required to investigate the contribution of the non-implanted ears of users of BMS to pitch perception, and the effect of hearing loss on the development of pitch perception in children.

show abstract

Section: Speech Recognitioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

“…This may be due to a better perception of lower frequency phonemes with more information provided regarding the place and manner of articulation compared with a CI-alone [8].…”

Section: Speech Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

Looi

Radford

2011

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some additional advantages of the combined mode were also reported; however, they were related to overcoming head shadow effects when listening through two ears. The acoustic ear was found to also contribute to speech recognition in quiet by providing some low-frequency speech information in Ching et al (2001); the low-frequency acoustic hearing provided increased perception of voicing and manner, which, as discussed previously, are dependent upon low-and mid-frequency cues. Gifford et al (2007) reported similar advantages in speech recognition from acoustic hearing contralateral to the implanted ear.…”

Section: Hearing Aids In the Contralateral Earsupporting

confidence: 52%

Combined acoustic and electric hearing: Preserving residual acoustic hearing

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of this review is the strategy of preserving residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear to provide combined electrical stimulation and acoustic hearing as a rehabilitative strategy for sensorineural hearing loss. This chapter will concentrate on research done with the Iowa/Nucleus 10mm Hybrid device, but we will also attempt to summarize strategies and results from other groups around the world who use slightly different approaches. A number of studies have shown that preserving residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear is a realistic goal for many patients with severe high-frequency hearing loss. The addition of the electric stimulation to their existing acoustic hearing can provide increased speech recognition for these patients. In addition, the preserved acoustic hearing can offer considerable advantages, as compared to a traditional cochlear implant, for tasks such as speech recognition in backgrounds or appreciation of music and other situations where the poor frequency resolution of electric stimulation has been a disadvantage.

show abstract

“…There is evidence to suggest that HAs in the non-implanted ear can offer benefits on measures of speech understanding in noise in adult listeners (e.g., Armstrong et al, 1997;Ching et al, 2001Ching et al, , 2004Tyler et al, 2002;Kong et al, 2005) and location acuity (Ching et al, 2001;Tyler et al, 2002). Similarly, in some children benefits have been seen on tasks involving sound location identification and speech understanding in noise, although the effect sizes are very small (e.g., Ching et al, 2001). Kong et al (2005) have suggested that HAs can lead to improvements whereby fine structure acoustic information at low frequencies is combined with highfrequency envelope information, compensating for limitations in the CI signal processing and electrode design.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants and/or hearing aids in children

Litovsky

Johnstone

Godar

2006

International Journal of Audiology

237

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated functional benefits from bilateral stimulation in 20 children ages 4 -14, 10 use two CIs and 10 use one CI and one HA. Localization acuity was measured with the minimum audible angle (MAA). Speech intelligibility was measured in quiet, and in the presence of 2-talker competing speech using the CRISP forced-choice test. Results show that both groups perform similarly when speech reception thresholds are evaluated. However, there appears to be benefit (improved MAA and speech thresholds) from wearing two devices compared with a single device that is significantly greater in the group with two CI than in the bimodal group. Individual variability also suggests that some children perform similarly to normal-hearing children, while others clearly do not. Future advances in binaural fitting strategies and improved speech processing schemes that maximize binaural sensitivity will no doubt contribute to increasing the binaurally-driven advantages in persons with bilateral CIs. KeywordsBilateral; Binaural; Cochlear implant; Hearing aid; Children; Speech; Localization Cochlear implants (CIs) have become a powerful means of providing hearing to deaf persons. Although the vast majority of CI users can understand speech in a quiet situation (Zeng, 2004;Stickney et al, 2004;Holt & Kirk, 2005), and report improvement in quality of life postimplantation (Summerfield et al, 2002), they have continued difficulties under many circumstances. For instance, most CI users have difficulty locating sounds in their environments; all sounds appear to be coming either directly from their ear, or inside their head. In addition, their ability to understand speech in everyday, noisy and reverberant environments is quite poor (e.g., Fu et al, 1998;Nelson & Jin, 2004;Stickney et al, 2004Stickney et al, , 2005. Continuous efforts are being made to improve performance with single CIs by developing better speech processing strategies (e.g., Rubinstein & Hong, 2003;Green et al, 2005;Nie et al, 2005;Yang & Fu, 2005).Bilateral CIs (BI-CIs) are also being provided to a growing number of patients in an attempt to increase quality of life and to improve listening in everyday noisy situations. This clinical approach is primarily rooted in the assumption that, since normal-hearing people rely on two ears (binaural hearing) for sound localization and speech understanding in noise, deaf individuals should also have two good ears in order to maximize their performance. Bilaterally implanted adults show some clear and significant benefits when using two CIs compared with a single CI. As in normal hearing persons, speech understanding in noise is better in bilateral NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript users when both ears are activated compared with a monaural condition (Gantz et al, 2002;Tyler et al, 2002;Muller et al, 2002;Litovsky et al, 2004;Schleich et al, 2004). The benefits are thought to arise from a combination of effects, including the head shadow effect, binaural squelch and binaural...

show abstract

Should Children Who Use Cochlear Implants Wear Hearing Aids in the Opposite Ear?

Cited by 179 publications

References 20 publications

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

Combined acoustic and electric hearing: Preserving residual acoustic hearing

Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants and/or hearing aids in children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About