Objectives The present study characterizes the relationship between bimodal benefit and hearing aid (HA) performance, cochlear implant (CI) performance, and the difference in the performances of the two devices. Methods Fourteen adult bimodal listeners participated in the study. Consonant, vowel, and sentence recognition were measured in quiet and noise (at a +5 and +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)) with an HA alone, a CI alone, and with the combined use of an HA and CI in each listener. Speech and noise were presented directly in front of the listener. Results The correlation analyses showed that bimodal benefit was significantly associated with the difference in performances of a CI and an HA in all testing materials, with HA-alone performance in vowel recognition, and with CI-alone performance in sentence recognition. However, regression analyses showed that the independent contribution of the difference in performance across ears to bimodal benefit was significant, irrespective of the testing material or the SNR: the smaller the difference, the greater the benefit. Further, the independent contributions of HA-only performance and CI-alone performance were not significant factors in predicting the existence of bimodal benefit across testing materials and SNRs when the effect of the difference between CI and HA performance was removed from the model. Conclusion The results suggest that bimodal benefit is limited by how effectively the modalities integrate, rather than HA-only or CI-alone performance, and that this integration is facilitated when the performances of the modalities are similar.

Objectives This study investigated whether a spectral mismatch across ears influences the benefit of redundancy, squelch, and head shadow differently in speech perception using acoustic simulation of bilateral cochlear implant (CI) processing. Design Ten normal hearing subjects participated in the study, and acoustic simulations of CIs were used to test these subjects. Sentence recognition, presented unilaterally and bilaterally, was measured at +5 dB and +10 dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) with bilaterally matched and mismatched conditions. Unilateral and bilateral CIs were simulated using 8-channel sine-wave vocoders. Binaural spectral mismatch was introduced by changing the relative simulated insertion depths across ears. Subjects were tested while listening with headphones; head-related transfer functions were applied before the vocoder processing to preserve natural interaural level and time differences. Results For both SNRs, greater and more consistent binaural benefit of squelch and redundancy occurred for the matched condition while binaural interference of squelch and redundancy occurred for the mismatched condition. However, significant binaural benefit of head shadow existed irrespective of spectral mismatches and SNRs. Conclusions The results suggest that bilateral spectral mismatch may have a negative impact on the binaural benefit of squelch and redundancy for bilateral CI users. The results also suggest that clinical mapping should be carefully administrated for bilateral CI users to minimize the difference in spectral patterns between the two CIs.

Objective To compare the speech perception benefit, provided by a contralateral hearing aid (HA) or a second cochlear implant (CI). Study Design Repeated measures. Patients A total of 25 adult subjects participated in the study, including 12 bilateral (10 females and 2 males) and 13 bimodal (6 females and 7 males) users. All bilateral users were sequentially implanted. The bimodal users were separated into a poor group (n=5, aided pure-tone average (PTA) ≥ 55 dB HL at audiometric frequencies ≤ 1 kHz) and a good group (n=8, aided PTA < 55 dB HL). Main Outcome Measures Consonant, vowel, and sentence recognition was measured in quiet and noise at +5 dB and +10 dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Speech recognition performance was evaluated under three listening conditions: CI alone, HA alone, and CI+HA for bimodal users; first CI alone, second CI alone, and first CI + second CI for bilateral users when speech and noise were presented from the front. Results There was no significant difference in the binaural benefit between the good bimodal and bilateral groups in vowel and sentence recognition. However, the binaural benefit is significantly better in the bilateral group than in the poor bimodal group for all three speech measures. Conclusion These results suggest that the aided pure-tone average at audiometric frequencies ≤ 1 kHz may serve as one of the clinical criteria for the recommendation of whether or not bimodal patients should consider a second cochlear implant in order to maximize their binaural listening ability.

Objectives: The benefit of round window (RW) approach for cochlear implant (CI) has been well studied. Because the RW represents a natural door to scala tympani, it facilitates precise electrode insertion. Atraumatic electrode insertion can also be performed without drilling the cochlear lateral wall. However, the RW approach has several limitations. The purpose of this study is to describe successful CI surgeries utilizing the RW approach except for severe cases of temporal bone anomaly. The authors’ successful surgical solution for cases involving difficult RW access is also described. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 377 consecutive surgeries of cochlear implantation performed between June 2010 and December 2018 by a single experienced surgeon. Standard and alternative procedures were used according to anatomical variations. Standard procedures included modified techniques of mastoidectomy in the RW approach, opening of facial recess, exposure of RW membrane, and electrode insertion. Difficult cases involving severe rotated cochlea or hypoplastic mastoid were successfully treated with RW insertion using alternative procedures such as external auditory canal (EAC) wall mobilization and endomeatal approach. Results: We performed CI surgery through a reproducible RW technique in two cases involving endomeatal approach and three cases of EAC mobilization. Other cases were treated using the standard procedure. Conclusion: Cochlear implant surgery through RW is reliable, safe, and effective. The RW technique is reproducible via several surgical procedures in most CI cases. Identification and safe exposure of RW membrane is a prerequisite for successful electrode insertion in cochlear implant surgery.

No abstract