Ruth M. Reeder

Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness: a pilot study.

Objective This pilot study examined speech recognition, localization, temporal and spectral discrimination, and subjective reports of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with unilateral deafness. Study Design Three adult male participants with short-term unilateral deafness (<5 yr) participated. All had sudden onset of severe-to-profound hearing loss in 1 ear, which then received a CI, and normal or near normal hearing in the other ear. Speech recognition in quiet and noise, localization, discrimination of temporal and spectral cues, and a subjective questionnaire were obtained over several days. Listening conditions were CI, normal hearing (NH) ear, and bilaterally (CI and NH). Results All participants had open-set speech recognition and excellent audibility (250–6,000 Hz) with the CI. Localization improved bilaterally compared with the NH ear alone. Word recognition in noise was significantly better bilaterally than with the NH ear for 2 participants. Sentence recognition in various noise conditions did not show significant bilateral improvement; however, the CI did not hinder performance in noise even when noise was toward the CI side. The addition of the CI improved temporal difference discrimination for 2 participants and spectral difference discrimination for all participants. Participants wore the CI full time, and subjective reports were positive. Conclusion Overall, the CI recipients with unilateral deafness obtained open-set speech recognition, improved localization, improved word recognition in noise, and improved perception of their ability to hear in everyday life. A larger study is warranted to further quantify the benefits and limitations of cochlear implantation in individuals with unilateral deafness.

Restoring Hearing Symmetry with Two Cochlear Implants or One Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid

With todays technology and the demonstrated success of cochlear implantation, along with expanded candidacy criteria, the opportunity to provide optimal hearing to both ears for individuals with severe-to-profound hearing loss is greater than ever. This article reviews the advantages of binaural hearing and the disadvantages of hearing with only one ear or hearing with two ears with significantly different sound thresholds. A case study is presented that demonstrates the benefit of bimodal hearing (i.e., a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and a contralateral hearing aid [HA]) in a nontraditional CI candidate with asymmetrical hearing thresholds. Then, selected studies in adult recipients who use a CI and contralateral HA or who use two CIs are summarized. The data overall demonstrate that bilateral CI recipients, traditional bimodal recipients, and nontraditional bimodal recipients experience substantial binaural hearing advantages, including improved speech recognition in noise, localization, and functional everyday communication. These results indicate that bilateral stimulation of the auditory system through a CI and contralateral HA or two CIs is beneficial and should become standard clinical practice.

Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

Objective: Bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss is a standard criterion for cochlear implantation. Increasingly, patients are implanted in one ear and continue to use a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear to improve abilities such as sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Patients with severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and a more moderate hearing loss in the other ear (i.e., asymmetric hearing) are not typically considered candidates for cochlear implantation. Amplification in the poorer ear is often unsuccessful because of limited benefit, restricting the patient to unilateral listening from the better ear alone. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with asymmetric hearing loss could benefit from cochlear implantation in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. Design: Ten adults with asymmetric hearing between ears participated. In the poorer ear, all participants met cochlear implant candidacy guidelines; seven had postlingual onset, and three had pre/perilingual onset of severe to profound hearing loss. All had open-set speech recognition in the better-hearing ear. Assessment measures included word and sentence recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in fixed noise (four-talker babble) and in diffuse restaurant noise using an adaptive procedure, localization of word stimuli, and a hearing handicap scale. Participants were evaluated preimplant with hearing aids and postimplant with the implant alone, the hearing aid alone in the better ear, and bimodally (the implant and hearing aid in combination). Postlingual participants were evaluated at 6 mo postimplant, and pre/perilingual participants were evaluated at 6 and 12 mo postimplant. Data analysis compared the following results: (1) the poorer-hearing ear preimplant (with hearing aid) and postimplant (with cochlear implant); (2) the device(s) used for everyday listening pre- and postimplant; and (3) the hearing aid-alone and bimodal listening conditions postimplant. Results: The postlingual participants showed significant improvements in speech recognition after 6 mo cochlear implant use in the poorer ear. Five postlingual participants had a bimodal advantage over the hearing aid-alone condition on at least one test measure. On average, the postlingual participants had significantly improved localization with bimodal input compared with the hearing aid-alone. Only one pre/perilingual participant had open-set speech recognition with the cochlear implant. This participant had better hearing than the other two pre/perilingual participants in both the poorer and better ear. Localization abilities were not significantly different between the bimodal and hearing aid-alone conditions for the pre/perilingual participants. Mean hearing handicap ratings improved postimplant for all participants indicating perceived benefit in everyday life with the addition of the cochlear implant. Conclusions: Patients with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical cochlear implant candidates can benefit from using a cochlear implant in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. For this group of 10, the 7 postlingually deafened participants showed greater benefits with the cochlear implant than the pre/perilingual participants; however, further study is needed to determine maximum benefit for those with early onset of hearing loss.

Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response.

Objective As the need for objective measures with cochlear implant users increases, it is critical to understand how electrical potentials behave when stimulus parameters are systematically varied. The purpose of this study was to record and evaluate the effects of implanted electrode site and stimulus current level on latency, amplitude, and threshold measures of electrically evoked auditory potentials, representing brainstem and cortical levels of the auditory system. Design The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR) were recorded from the same experimental subjects, 11 adult Clarion cochlear implant users. The Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, the Na-Pa complex of the EAMLR and the N1-P2 complex of the ELAR were investigated relative to electrode site (along the intra-cochlear electrode array) and stimulus current level. Evoked potential measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures. Results For the EABR, Wave V latency was significantly longer for the basal electrode (7) compared with the mid (4) and apical (1) electrodes. For the EAMLR and ELAR, there were no significant differences in latency by electrode site. For all subjects and each of the evoked potentials, the apical electrodes tended to have the largest amplitude and the basal electrodes the smallest amplitude, although amplitude differences did not reach statistical significance. In general, decreases in stimulus current level resulted in statistically significant decreases in the amplitude of Wave V, Na-Pa and N1-P2. The evoked potential thresholds for Wave V, Na-Pa, and N1-P2 were significantly higher for the basal Electrode 7 than for Electrodes 4 and 1. Conclusions Electrophysiologic responses of Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, Na-Pa of the EAMLR, and N1-P2 of the ELAR were characterized as functions of current level and electrode site. Data from this study may serve as a normative reference for expected latency, amplitude and threshold values for the recording of electrically evoked auditory brainstem and cortical potentials. Responses recorded from cochlear implant users show many similar patterns, yet important distinctions, compared with auditory potentials elicited with acoustic signals.

Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.

Objective: HiRes (HR) 120 is a sound-processing strategy purported to offer an increase in the precision of frequency-to-place mapping through the use of current steering. This within-subject study was designed to compare speech recognition as well as music and sound quality ratings for HR and HR 120 processing. Setting: Cochlear implant/tertiary referral center. Subjects: Eight postlinguistically deafened adults implanted with an Advanced Bionics CII or HR 90K cochlear implant. Study Design/Main Outcome Measures: Performance with HR and HR 120 was assessed during 4 test sessions with a battery of measures including monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet and in noise, and ratings of sound quality and musical passages. Results: Compared with HR, speech recognition results in adult cochlear implant recipients revealed small but significant improvements with HR 120 for single syllable words and for 2 of 3 sentence recognition measures in noise. Both easy and more difficult sentence material presented in quiet were not significantly different between strategies. Additionally, music quality ratings were significantly better for HR 120 than for HR, and 7 of 8 subjects preferred HR 120 over HR for listening in everyday life. Conclusion: HR 120 may offer equivalent or improved benefit to patients compared with HR. Differences in performance on test measures between strategies are dependent on speech recognition materials and listening conditions.

Cochlear implantation in nontraditional candidates: preliminary results in adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss.

Objective Traditionally, children are cochlear implant (CI) candidates if bilateral severe to profound hearing loss is present and amplification benefit is limited. The current study investigated abilities of adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss (one ear with severe to profound hearing loss and better hearing contralaterally), where the poorer ear received a CI and the better ear maintained amplification. Study Design Within-subject case study. Setting Pediatric hospital, outpatient clinic. Patients Participants were 5 adolescents who had not met traditional CI candidacy because of one better hearing ear but did have 1 ear that met criteria and was implanted. All maintained hearing aid (HA) use in the contralateral ear. In the poorer ear, before implant, 3 participants had used amplification, and the other 2 had no HA experience. Main Outcome Measure Participants were assessed in 3 listening conditions: HA alone, CI alone, and both devices together (bimodal) for speech recognition in quiet and noise and sound localization. Results Three participants had CI open-set speech recognition and significant bimodal improvement for speech recognition and localization compared with the HA or CI alone. Two participants had no CI speech recognition and limited bimodal improvement. Conclusion Some adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical CI candidates can benefit from a CI in the poorer ear, compared with a HA in the better ear alone. Additional study is needed to determine outcomes for this population, especially those who have early onset profound hearing loss in one ear and limited HA experience.

Electrophysiologic Effects of Placing Cochlear Implant Electrodes in a Perimodiolar Position in Young Children

Objective The purpose of this study was to intraoperatively record the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) before and after placement of the electrode positioning system (EPS) (CII Bionic Ear with HiFocus I cochlear implant electrode array) as well as before and after stylet removal (Nucleus Contour cochlear implant electrode array). It was hypothesized that physiologic changes would occur after perimodiolar positioning of the electrode array and these changes would be evident from the EABR recordings.

Effects of unilateral input and mode of hearing in the better ear: self-reported performance using the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale.

Objective: To evaluate effects of hearing mode (normal hearing, cochlear implant, or hearing aid) on everyday communication among adult unilateral listeners using the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Individuals with one good, naturally hearing ear were expected to have higher overall ratings than unilateral listeners dependent on a cochlear implant or hearing aid. The authors anticipated that listening environments reliant on binaural processing for successful communication would be rated most disabling by all unilateral listeners. Regardless of hearing mode, all hearing-impaired participants were expected to have lower ratings than individuals with normal hearing bilaterally. A secondary objective was to compare post-treatment SSQ results of participants who subsequently obtained a cochlear implant for the poorer hearing ear with those of participants with a single normal-hearing ear. Design: Participants were 87 adults recruited as part of ongoing research investigating asymmetric hearing effects. Sixty-six participants were unilateral listeners who had one unaided/nonimplanted severe to profound hearing-loss ear and were grouped based on hearing mode of the better ear: 30 had one normal-hearing ear (i.e., unilateral hearing-loss participants); 20 had a unilateral cochlear implant; and 16 had a unilateral hearing aid. Data were also collected from 21 normal-hearing individuals, as well as a subset of participants who subsequently received a cochlear implant in the poorer ear and thus became bilateral listeners. Data analysis was completed at the domain and subscale levels. Results: A significant mode-of-hearing group effect for the hearing-impaired participants (i.e., with unilateral hearing loss, unilateral cochlear implant, or unilateral hearing aid) was identified for two domains (Speech and Qualities) and six subscales (Speech in Quiet, Speech in Noise, Speech in Speech Contexts, Multiple Speech Stream Processing and Switching, Identification of Sound and Objects, and Sound Quality and Naturalness). There was no significant mode-of-hearing group effect for the Spatial domain or the other four subscales (Localization, Distance and Movement, Segregation of Sounds, and Listening Effort). Follow-up analysis indicated the unilateral normal-hearing ear group had significantly higher ratings than the unilateral cochlear implant or hearing aid groups for the Speech domain and four of the ten subscales; neither the cochlear implant nor hearing aid group had subscale ratings significantly higher than each other or the unilateral hearing loss group. Audibility and sound quality imparted by hearing mode were identified as factors related to subjective listening experience. After cochlear implantation to restore bilateral hearing, SSQ ratings for bilateral cochlear implant or cochlear implant plus hearing aid participants were significantly higher than those of the unilateral hearing-loss group for Speech in Quiet, Speech in Noise, Localization, Distance and Movement, Listening Effort, and the Spatial domain. Hearing-impaired individuals had significantly poorer ratings in all areas compared with those with bilateral normal hearing. Conclusions: Adults reliant on a single ear, irrespective of better ear hearing mode, including those with one normal hearing ear, are at a disadvantage in all aspects of everyday listening and communication. Audibility and hearing mode were shown to differentially contribute to listening experience.

Electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses for lateral and medial placement of the Clarion HiFocus electrode.

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the electrically evoked auditory brain stem response (EABR) for lateral and medial placement of the Clarion HiFocus cochlear implant electrode array via the electrode positioning system (EPS). Design Twenty-five adult and pediatric cochlear implant recipients participated in the study. Intraoperatively recorded EABRs were evoked by stimuli via three intracochlear electrodes representing apical, medial, and basal locations, and responses were elicited before and after positioner insertion. Evoked potential measures of wave V amplitude and threshold were examined for statistical significance using ANOVA for repeated measures and Chi-Square methods. Results For a given supra-threshold stimulus level, the increase in EABR wave V amplitude was significantly larger after EPS placement compared to before EPS placement for electrodes 1 (apical) and 13 (basal). Likewise, when the stimulus was decreased to obtain a minimal amplitude, the wave V threshold was significantly lower after EPS placement for electrodes 7 (medial) and 13. The number of measurements that showed decreased wave V threshold after EPS insertion was significantly dependent on intracochlear electrode location. Conclusions Placement of the Clarion Electrode Positioning System following HiFocus electrode insertion resulted in a reduction in the electrical current required to activate the auditory system. The effect of the EPS was greatest for the basal location, demonstrated by lower wave V thresholds and a larger percentage increase in wave V amplitude. The EABR reflected electrophysiologic changes relative to lateral-to-medial changes in intracochlear electrode position due to the EPS.

Cochlear implants in infants and toddlers.

5. Fryauf-Bertschy H, TylerRS, Kelsay DM, Gantz BJ,Woodworm GG. Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use. J Speech Hear Res 1997;40:183-99. 6. Quittner A, Steck JT. Predictors of cochlear implant use in children. Am J Otol 1991;12(suppl):89-94. 7. Somers M. Speech perception abilities in children with cochlear implants or hearing aids. Am J Otol 1991;12(suppl):174-8. 8. Osberger MJ, Fisher LJ, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Geier L, Barker MJ. Speech recognition performance of older children with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1998;19:152-7. 9. Erber NP. Auditory training. Washington, DC: A. G. Bell Association for the Deaf, 1982. 10. Moog JS, Geers AE. Early speech perception test. St Louis, Mo: Central Institute for the Deaf, 1990.