Höranstrengung bei Cochlea-Implantaten

Schnabl, Johannes; Bumann, B.; Rehbein, Moisés Ortemar; Müller, Oliver; Seidler, Harald; Wolf‐Magele, Astrid; Sprinzl, G. M.; Windfuhr, Jochen P.; Weichbold, Viktor

doi:10.1007/s00106-015-0020-y

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Audiometric measures consistently demonstrate improved sound localization and speech understanding in spatially separated noise among bilateral cochlear implant users (Laske et al 2009; Smulders et al 2016b; van Zon et al 2017). These findings are corroborated by patient-reported outcomes, which additional identify reduced listening effort, reduced burden of tinnitus, and security in redundancy as benefits of bilateral over unilateral cochlear implants (Olze et al 2012; Hughes & Galvin 2013; Arnoldner et al 2014; Schnabl et al 2015). These benefits are important to the HRQoL of individuals with hearing impairment and do not appear to be measured by available HSUV instruments (Dixon et al 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, patients with bilateral hearing impairment are candidates for a single (unilateral) cochlear implant with the goals of restoring speech understanding and improving quality of life. Mounting evidence now supports bilateral implantation for reduced listening effort, and improved signal discrimination, sound quality, and localization (Culling et al 2012; Hughes & Galvin 2013; Schnabl et al 2015; Rana et al 2017). Bilateral cochlear implantation can be performed simultaneously, or sequentially with a second surgery for individuals who have already received a unilateral cochlear implant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health State Utility Values Associated with Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants in adults remains uncertain despite established clinical benefits. In cost-effectiveness studies, benefit is often measured by change in health state utility value (HSUV), a single number summary of health-related quality of life anchored at 0 (state of being dead) and 1 (perfect health). Small differences in bilateral cochlear implant HSUV change conclusions of published models, and invalid estimates can therefore mislead policy and funding decisions. As such, we aimed to review and synthesize published HSUV estimates associated with cochlear implants. Design: We included observational or experimental studies reporting HSUV for adult patients (age ≥18 years) with at least moderate-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears who received unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases up to May 1, 2021. Study and participant characteristics and HSUV outcomes were extracted. Narrative synthesis is reported for all studies. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to generate pooled estimates for the mean difference in HSUV for three comparisons: (1) unilateral cochlear implant versus preimplant, (2) bilateral cochlear implants versus preimplant, (3) bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implants. Our principal measure was pooled mean difference in HSUV. Results: Thirty-six studies reporting unique patient cohorts were identified. Health Utilities Index, 3 (HUI-3) was the most common HSUV elicitation method. HSUV from 19 preimplant mean estimates (1402 patients), 19 unilateral cochlear implant mean estimates (1701 patients), and 5 bilateral cochlear implants mean estimates (83 patients) were pooled to estimate mean differences in HUI-3 HSUV by network meta-analysis. Compared with preimplant, a unilateral cochlear implant was associated with a mean change in HSUV of +0.17 (95% credible interval [CrI] +0.12 to +0.23) and bilateral cochlear implants were associated with a mean change of +0.25 (95% CrI +0.12 to +0.37). No significant difference in HSUV was detected for bilateral compared with unilateral cochlear implants (+0.08 [95% CrI −0.06 to +0.21]). Overall study quality was moderate. Conclusions: The findings of this review and network meta-analysis comprise the best-available resource for parameterization of cost-utility models of cochlear implantation in adults and highlight the need to critically evaluate the validity of available HSUV instruments for bilateral cochlear implant populations. Protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42018091838)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health State Utility Values Associated with Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies suggest that the benefit of bimodal and bilateral hearing configurations over unilateral hearing might stem from having the ability to segregate and attend to a target sound stimuli. This can be related to better enjoyment and clarity of media (Kong et al, 2005;Dorman et al, 2008;Gfeller et al, 2008;Veekmans et al, 2009), lower listening effort (Noble et al, 2008;Dunn et al, 2010;Hughes and Galvin, 2013;Schnabl et al, 2015;Perreau et al, 2017;Sladen et al, 2018), and better quality of hearing (Summerfield et al, 2006;Noble et al, 2008;Kocak Erdem and Ciprut, 2019). The advantage of bilateral users over bimodal users might be caused by a mismatch between listening through a CI on one side and hearing aid on the other requiring compensations in working memory and attention to combine the streams of auditory information (Gifford and Dorman, 2019;Pieper et al, 2022).…”

Section: Relationships With Ssq Spatial Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The advantage of bilateral users over bimodal users might be caused by a mismatch between listening through a CI on one side and hearing aid on the other requiring compensations in working memory and attention to combine the streams of auditory information (Gifford and Dorman, 2019;Pieper et al, 2022). Lower levels of listening effort and better quality of hearing suggests that a lower degree of cognitive resource recruitment is required for encoding stimuli perhaps due to its spatial hearing advantage (Noble et al, 2008;Schnabl et al, 2015;Hua et al, 2017) and lack of mismatched auditory information. This is corroborated by the results of this study in which CI users reporting better spatial hearing also showed greater working memory ability both in the visual and auditory modality (reading and listening spans).…”

Section: Relationships With Ssq Spatial Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greater working memory in cochlear implant users is related to higher subjective quality of life

Prince,

Chen,

et al. 2024

Front. Audiol. Otol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionA common concern for individuals with moderate-to-profound hearing loss who have received a cochlear implants (CIs) is difficulty following conversations in noisy environments. A possible reason is the increased use of cognitive resources (attention and working memory) to disambiguate the speech stimuli potentially causing detriments in functional aspects of life. However, this relationship is not well-documented. The overall arching goal of this study was to quantify the relationships between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and cognitive ability through working memory and speech perception measures.MethodsIn the current study, 31 adult CI users and typical hearing (TH) age-matched controls were recruited. CI users completed PROMs including Speech, Spatial and Quality of hearing survey (SSQ) and versions of a quality of life (QOL) for CI users (CIQOL) and Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ). Measures of cognition were assessed using internet-based tools. Outcomes were compared between groups and PROMs and were related to the cognitive tasks.ResultsReduced auditory working memory and speech perception in noise were observed in CI users compared to TH controls. Correlation analyses revealed significant domain-specific PROM relationships with cognitive tasks in CI users, but not in TH controls. The SSQ had more significant relationships compared to the other PROMS.ConclusionThese results suggest that internet-based metrics of cognitive ability are associated with the functional hearing aspects of life in CI users and that SSQ is more sensitive to investigate the cognitive related effects of QOL compared to other commonly used PROMs.

show abstract

“…The present study contains unilateral, bimodal, and bilateral CI users who may have different subjective listening experiences, and thus different effort and demand requirements. For instance, bilateral CI users have reported a lower degree of listening effort compared to unilateral CI users (Hughes and Galvin, 2013;Schnabl et al, 2015;Kocak Erdem and Ciprut, 2019). The neural response of CI users may also have been limited by individual differences related to the user device, such as CI distortions to the speech envelope, and thus leading to no detectable changes in TRF amplitude at a group level that corresponded with listening effort and attention.…”

Section: General Effect Of Increasing Background Noise Levels On Trf ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural responses to naturalistic audiovisual speech are related to listening demand in cochlear implant users

Xiu

Paul²,

Chen³

et al. 2022

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a weak relationship between clinical and self-reported speech perception outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) listeners. Such poor correspondence may be due to differences in clinical and “real-world” listening environments and stimuli. Speech in the real world is often accompanied by visual cues, background environmental noise, and is generally in a conversational context, all factors that could affect listening demand. Thus, our objectives were to determine if brain responses to naturalistic speech could index speech perception and listening demand in CI users. Accordingly, we recorded high-density electroencephalogram (EEG) while CI users listened/watched a naturalistic stimulus (i.e., the television show, “The Office”). We used continuous EEG to quantify “speech neural tracking” (i.e., TRFs, temporal response functions) to the show’s soundtrack and 8–12 Hz (alpha) brain rhythms commonly related to listening effort. Background noise at three different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), +5, +10, and +15 dB were presented to vary the difficulty of following the television show, mimicking a natural noisy environment. The task also included an audio-only (no video) condition. After each condition, participants subjectively rated listening demand and the degree of words and conversations they felt they understood. Fifteen CI users reported progressively higher degrees of listening demand and less words and conversation with increasing background noise. Listening demand and conversation understanding in the audio-only condition was comparable to that of the highest noise condition (+5 dB). Increasing background noise affected speech neural tracking at a group level, in addition to eliciting strong individual differences. Mixed effect modeling showed that listening demand and conversation understanding were correlated to early cortical speech tracking, such that high demand and low conversation understanding occurred with lower amplitude TRFs. In the high noise condition, greater listening demand was negatively correlated to parietal alpha power, where higher demand was related to lower alpha power. No significant correlations were observed between TRF/alpha and clinical speech perception scores. These results are similar to previous findings showing little relationship between clinical speech perception and quality-of-life in CI users. However, physiological responses to complex natural speech may provide an objective measure of aspects of quality-of-life measures like self-perceived listening demand.

show abstract

Höranstrengung bei Cochlea-Implantaten

Abstract: We conclude that bilateral CI use has some effect on reducing listening effort, but compared with unilateral use the effect is possibly not very great.

Cited by 10 publications

References 11 publications

Health State Utility Values Associated with Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Health State Utility Values Associated with Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Greater working memory in cochlear implant users is related to higher subjective quality of life

Neural responses to naturalistic audiovisual speech are related to listening demand in cochlear implant users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About