Contrasting benefits from contralateral implants and hearing aids in cochlear implant users

Hoesel, Richard J. M. van

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.014

Cited by 65 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also the bimodal benefit for speech understanding in noise was in line with the 1-3 (S0N0) and 1 (S0NHA) dB reported in the literature (Ching et al, 2007;van Hoesel, 2012). Still, the benefit in S0NHA was rather small compared to our previous study with largely the same subjects (1.6 versus 3.0 dB) (Veugen et al, 2016b).…”

Section: Bimodal Benefitsupporting

confidence: 90%

Effect of extreme adaptive frequency compression in bimodal listeners on sound localization and speech perception

Veugen

Chalupper²,

Mens

et al. 2017

Cochlear Implants International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to improve access to high-frequency interaural level differences (ILD), by applying extreme frequency compression (FC) in the hearing aid (HA) of 13 bimodal listeners, using a cochlear implant (CI) and conventional HA in opposite ears. Design: An experimental signal-adaptive frequency-lowering algorithm was tested, compressing frequencies above 160 Hz into the individual audible range of residual hearing, but only for consonants (adaptive FC), thus protecting vowel formants, with the aim to preserve speech perception. In a cross-over design with at least 5 weeks of acclimatization between sessions, bimodal performance with and without adaptive FC was compared for horizontal sound localization, speech understanding in quiet and in noise, and vowel, consonant and voice-pitch perception. Results: On average, adaptive FC did not significantly affect any of the test results. Yet, two subjects who were fitted with a relatively weak frequency compression ratio, showed improved horizontal sound localization. After the study, four subjects preferred adaptive FC, four preferred standard frequency mapping, and four had no preference. Noteworthy, the subjects preferring adaptive FC were those with best performance on all tasks, both with and without adaptive FC. Conclusion: On a group level, extreme adaptive FC did not change sound localization and speech understanding in bimodal listeners. Possible reasons are too strong compression ratios, insufficient residual hearing or that the adaptive switching, although preserving vowel perception, may have been ineffective to produce consistent ILD cues. Individual results suggested that two subjects were able to integrate the frequency-compressed HA input with that of the CI, and benefitted from enhanced binaural cues for horizontal sound localization.

show abstract

Section: Bimodal Benefitsupporting

confidence: 90%

Effect of extreme adaptive frequency compression in bimodal listeners on sound localization and speech perception

Veugen

Chalupper²,

Mens

et al. 2017

Cochlear Implants International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This post-operative improvement is likely explained by the improved access to the monaural head-shadow effect due to provision of HF hearing via electrical stimulation. The observed effect is close to the approximate 5 dB advantage based on review of previous studies ( van Hoesel 2012). For the spatial configuration which advantaged the hearing aid side, a decrease in SRM might have been expected if subjects had access to binaural unmasking preoperatively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…In this figure, the RMS error on the localization test is shown on the y axis, with a greater degree of error shown as a higher value. Chance performance using the eight loudspeaker configuration with a 180-degree span would be expected to be approximately 86 degrees if responses were uniformly distributed across the speaker array or 59 degrees if responses were at a fixed location directly in front of the subject ( van Hoesel & Litovsky 2011). Chance performance for each response strategy is shown as dashed lines on the chart above the grouped mean localization values.…”

Section: Sound Source Direction Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Outcomes for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Experiencing Loss of Usable Acoustic Hearing in the Implanted Ear

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The findings from this study support cochlear implantation for candidates with pre-operative levels of binaural acoustic hearing within the range examined within the present study. This includes subjects with preoperative open-set monosyllabic word scores ranging from 11 to 62% in the implanted ear, and from 16 to 75% on the contralateral side. Post-operative improvement would be expected for those subjects on a range of clinical measures, even when acoustic hearing was lost in the implanted ear after implantation.

show abstract

“…From questionnaire results, it appears that a patient's satisfaction with CI results also influences the bimodal decision process [Fitzpatrick and Leblanc, 2010]. Van Hoesel [2012] showed that the bimodal benefit increased as the HA performance improved relative to that with the CI alone. A study by Yoon et al [2014] recently suggested that the benefit of a bimodal fitting is facilitated when the performances of both modalities, electric and acoustic, are similar.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bimodal Hearing Aid Retention after Unilateral Cochlear Implantation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Contrasting benefits from contralateral implants and hearing aids in cochlear implant users

Cited by 65 publications

References 138 publications

Effect of extreme adaptive frequency compression in bimodal listeners on sound localization and speech perception

Effect of extreme adaptive frequency compression in bimodal listeners on sound localization and speech perception

Clinical Outcomes for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Experiencing Loss of Usable Acoustic Hearing in the Implanted Ear

Bimodal Hearing Aid Retention after Unilateral Cochlear Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About