The benefits of combining a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) in opposite ears on speech perception were examined in 15 adult unilateral CI recipients who regularly use a contralateral HA. A within-subjects design was carried out to assess speech intelligibility testing, listening effort ratings, and a sound quality questionnaire for the conditions CI alone, CIHA together, and HA alone when applicable. The primary outcome of bimodal benefit, defined as the difference between CIHA and CI, was statistically significant for speech intelligibility in quiet as well as for intelligibility in noise across tested spatial conditions. A reduction in effort on top of intelligibility at the highest tested signal-to-noise ratio was found. Moreover, the bimodal listening situation was rated to sound more voluminous, less tinny, and less unpleasant than CI alone. Listening effort and sound quality emerged as feasible and relevant measures to demonstrate bimodal benefit across a clinically representative range of bimodal users. These extended dimensions of speech perception can shed more light on the array of benefits provided by complementing a CI with a contralateral HA.

The goal of this study was to investigate contralateral hearing aid (HA) use after unilateral cochlear implantation and to identify factors of influence on the occurrence of a unilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipient becoming a bimodal user. A retrospective cross-sectional chart review was carried out among 77 adult unilateral CI recipients 1 year after implantation. A bimodal HA retention rate of 64% was observed. Associations with demographics, hearing history, residual hearing and speech recognition ability were investigated. Better pure-tone thresholds and unaided speech scores in the non-implanted ear, as well as a smaller difference in speech recognition scores between both ears, were significantly associated with HA retention. A combined model of HA retention was proposed, and cut-off points were determined to identify those CI recipients who were most likely to become bimodal users. These results can provide input to clinical guidelines concerning bimodal CI candidacy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate monaural beamforming in bimodally aided cochlear implant (CI) users.DesignThe study enrolled twelve adult bimodal listeners with at least six months of CI-experience and using a contralateral hearing aid (HA) most of the daytime. Participants were uniformly fitted with the same CI speech processor and HA, giving access to an identical monaural beamformer in both ears. A within-subject repeated measures design evaluated three directional configurations [omnidirectional, asymmetric directivity (in CI alone) and symmetric directivity (in both CI and HA)] in two noise types [stationary and fluctuating]. Bimodal speech reception thresholds (SRT) as well as listening effort ratings were assessed in a diffuse noise field.ResultsSymmetric monaural beamforming provided a significant SRT improvement of 2.6 dB SNR, compared to 1.6 dB SNR for asymmetric monaural beamforming. Directional benefits were similarly observed in stationary and fluctuating noise. Directivity did not contribute to less listening effort in addition to improvement in speech intelligibility. Bimodal performance was about 7 dB SNR worse in fluctuating than in stationary noise.ConclusionsMonaural beamforming provided substantial benefit for speech intelligibility in noise for bimodal listeners. The greatest benefit occurred when monaural beamforming was activated symmetrically in both CI and HA. Monaural beamforming does not bridge the gap between bimodal and normal hearing performance, especially in fluctuating noise. Results advocate further bimodal co-operation.Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered in www.trialregister.nl under number NTR4901.

Background: Prospective research in the field of cochlear implants is hampered by methodological issues and small sample sizes. The ELEPHANT study presents an alternative clinical trial design with a daily randomized approach evaluating individualized tonotopical fitting of a cochlear implant (CI). Methods: A single-blinded, daily-randomized clinical trial will be implemented to evaluate a new imaging-based CI mapping strategy. A minimum of 20 participants will be included from the start of the rehabilitation process with a 1-year follow-up period. Based on a post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT), mapping of electrical input will be aligned to natural place-pitch arrangement in the individual cochlea. The CI's frequency allocation table will be adjusted to match the electrical stimulation of frequencies as closely as possible to corresponding acoustic locations in the cochlea. A randomization scheme will be implemented whereby the participant, blinded to the intervention allocation, crosses over between the experimental and standard fitting program on a daily basis, and thus effectively acts as his own control, followed by a period of free choice between both maps to incorporate patient preference. With this new approach the occurrence of a first-order carryover effect and a limited sample size is addressed. Discussion: The experimental fitting strategy is thought to give rise to a steeper learning curve, result in better performance in challenging listening situations, improve sound quality, better complement residual acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear and be preferred by recipients of a CI. Concurrently, the suitability of the novel trial design will be considered in investigating these hypotheses.

A method of improved image analysis is described that can be used to predict the pitch percept on corresponding cochlear electrode positions. This method shows the potential of 3D imaging in CI fitting optimization.

Objective: The subjective experiences were assessed of cochlear implant (CI) users either wearing or not wearing a hearing aid (HA) at the contralateral ear. Design: Unilateral CI-recipients were asked to fill out a set of daily-life questionnaires on bimodal HA use, hearing disability, hearing handicap and general quality of life. Study sample: Twenty-six CI-recipients who regularly use a contralateral HA (bimodal group) and twenty-two CI-recipients who do not use a HA in the contralateral ear (unilateral group). Results: Comparisons between both groups (bimodal versus unilateral) showed no difference in self-rated disability, hearing handicap or general quality of life. However within the group of bimodal listeners, participants did report a significant benefit of bimodal hearing ability in various daily life listening situations. Conclusions: Bimodal benefit in daily life can consistently be experienced and reported within the group of bimodal users.

IntroductionEstimating differences in neural health across different sites within the individual cochlea potentially enables clinical applications for subjects with a cochlear implant. The electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) is a measure of neural excitability that possibly provides an indication of a neural condition. There are many factors, however, that affect this measure and increase the uncertainty of its interpretation. To better characterize the ECAP response, its relationship with electrode positioning, impedances, and behavioral stimulation levels was explored.MethodsA total of 14 adult subjects implanted with an Advanced Bionics cochlear electrode array were prospectively followed up from surgery to 6 months postoperative. Insertion depth, distance to the modiolus, and distance to the medial wall were assessed for each electrode by postoperative CT analysis. ECAPs were measured intraoperatively and at three visits postoperatively on all 16 electrodes using the NRI feature of clinical programming software and characterized using multiple parameters. Impedances and behavioral stimulation levels were measured at every fitting session.ResultsPatterns in ECAPs and impedances were consistent over time, but high variability existed among subjects and between different positions in the cochlea. Electrodes located closer to the apex of the cochlea and closer to the modiolus generally showed higher neural excitation and higher impedances. Maximum loudness comfort levels were correlated strongly with the level of current needed to elicit a response of 100 μV ECAP.ConclusionMultiple factors contribute to the ECAP response in subjects with a cochlear implant. Further research might address whether the ECAP parameters used in this study will benefit clinical electrode fitting or the assessment of auditory neuron integrity.

BackgroundDue to variation in electrode design, insertion depth and cochlear morphology, patients with a cochlear implant (CI) often have to adapt to a substantial mismatch between the characteristic response frequencies of cochlear neurons and the stimulus frequencies assigned to electrode contacts. We introduce an imaging-based fitting intervention, which aimed to reduce frequency-to-place mismatch by aligning frequency mapping with the tonotopic position of electrodes. Results were evaluated in a novel trial set-up where subjects crossed over between intervention and control using a daily within-patient randomized approach, immediately from the start of CI rehabilitation.MethodsFourteen adult participants were included in this single-blinded, daily randomized clinical trial. Based on a fusion of pre-operative imaging and a post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT), mapping of electrical input was aligned to natural place-pitch arrangement in the individual cochlea. That is, adjustments to the CI’s frequency allocation table were made so electrical stimulation of frequencies matched as closely as possible with corresponding acoustic locations in the cochlea. For a period of three months, starting at first fit, a scheme was implemented whereby the blinded subject crossed over between the experimental and standard fitting program using a daily randomized wearing schedule, and thus effectively acted as their own control. Speech outcomes (such as speech intelligibility in quiet and noise, sound quality and listening effort) were measured with both settings throughout the study period.ResultsOn a group level, standard fitting obtained subject preference and showed superior results in all outcome measures. In contrast, two out of fourteen subjects preferred the imaging-based fitting and correspondingly had better speech understanding with this setting compared to standard fitting.ConclusionOn average, cochlear implant fitting based on individual tonotopy did not elicit higher speech intelligibility but variability in individual results strengthen the potential for individualized frequency fitting. The novel trial design proved to be a suitable method for evaluation of experimental interventions in a prospective trial setup with cochlear implants.