Unilateral tinnitus resulting from single-sided deafness can be treated with electrical stimulation via a CI. The outcomes of this pilot study demonstrate a new method for treatment of tinnitus in select subjects, perhaps an important new indication for cochlear implantation.

After successful cochlear implantation in one ear, some patients continue to use a hearing aid at the contralateral ear. They report an improved reception of speech, especially in noise, as well as a better perception of music when the hearing aid and cochlear implant are used in this bimodal combination. Some individuals in this bimodal patient group also report the impression of an improved localization ability. Similar experiences are reported by the group of bilateral cochlear implantees. In this study, a survey of 11 bimodally and 4 bilaterally equipped cochlear implant users was carried out to assess localization ability. Individuals in the bimodal implant group were all provided with the same type of hearing aid in the opposite ear, and subjects in the bilateral implant group used cochlear implants of the same manufacturer on each ear. Subjects adjusted the spot of a computer-controlled laser-pointer to the perceived direction of sound incidence in the frontal horizontal plane by rotating a trackball. Two subjects of the bimodal group who had substantial residual hearing showed localization ability in the bimodal configuration, whereas using each single device only the subject with better residual hearing was able to discriminate the side of sound origin. Five other subjects with more pronounced hearing loss displayed an ability for side discrimination through the use of bimodal aids, while four of them were already able to discriminate the side with a single device. Of the bilateral cochlear implant group one subject showed localization accuracy close to that of normal hearing subjects. This subject was also able to discriminate the side of sound origin using the first implanted device alone. The other three bilaterally equipped subjects showed limited localization ability using both devices. Among them one subject demonstrated a side-discrimination ability using only the first implanted device.

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL. Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada. Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable. Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Hearing preservation was achieved in all patients (complete preservation 44.44%) after a mean follow-up period of 9.73 months. Mean monosyllabic test scores improved from 9% correct with the hearing aid alone to 48% with the cochlear implant and to 65% in the electric-acoustic mode.

Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) was developed for individuals with a profound hearing loss in the high frequencies and a substantial residual low-frequency hearing (LFH). For this group of candidates, conventional hearing aids often neither provided sufficient amplification nor were they considered suitable for cochlear implantation due to the possible destruction of residual hearing capabilities. With EAS, combining electric stimulation with an ipsilateral acoustic stimulation, preservation of residual LFH and the development of a new speech processor uniting both strategies became essential. Over the last years, EAS has developed further and advanced in electrode design and surgery techniques. This paper summarizes the history of EAS and acknowledges the tremendous work of the many research groups who contributed to the success of EAS.

Hearing could be preserved in all subjects. Speech understanding showed significant improvement in all tests over time with the EAS condition outperforming the cochlear implant-only condition at all intervals. These considerable effects were also reflected in the subjective benefit outcome.

The present multicentric clinical study involves 19 centres, 16 of them in German-speaking countries, 1 British, 1 Polish and 1 Hungarian. 60 postlingually deafened adults with a mean age of 47.5 years (20–70) and a mean duration of deafness of 5.3 years (0.5–20) have been evaluated with the MED-EL COMBI 40 cochlear implant which implements a high-rate continuous-interleaved-sampling strategy with 8 channels. Safety and effectiveness data have been collected. Speech perception tests include a 16-consonant, an 8-vowel, a sentence and a monosyllabic-word test in all languages and a 2-digit figure test in all languages but English. Test intervals are 1,3,6 months and 1 year after first fitting. 41 of the 60 postlingually deafened adult study patients have completed their 6-month evaluation. While their pre-operative monosyllabic-word score was 0%, their mean monosyllabic-word score 6 months after first fitting was 48% (8–90) with a median of 50%. The mean sentence understanding was 84% (24–100) with a median of 90%. The respective values for the 1-year evaluations with 25 patients are a mean of 50% (5–85), with a median of 60%, for the monosyllables and a mean of 89% (30–100), with a median of 97%, for the sentences.

Combined EAS in one ear supported by a hearing aid on the contralateral ear provided significantly improved speech perception compared with bilateral cochlear implantation. Although the scores for monosyllable words in quiet were higher in the bilateral CI group, the EAS group performed better in different noise and sound field conditions. Furthermore, the results indicated that binaural interaction between EAS in one ear and residual acoustic hearing in the opposite ear enhances speech perception in complex noise situations. Both bilateral CI and bimodal EAS users did not benefit from short temporal masker gaps, therefore the better performance of the EAS group in modulated noise conditions could be explained by the improved transmission of fundamental frequency cues in the lower-frequency region of acoustic hearing, which might foster the grouping of auditory objects.