Literature DB >> 14770014

Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Teresa Y C Ching1, Paula Incerti, Mandy Hill.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate 1) how a hearing aid needs to be adjusted for an adult who uses a cochlear implant in the contralateral ear; 2) whether the use of a hearing aid with a cochlear implant leads to interference; and 3) whether adults derive binaural benefits from using a hearing aid with a cochlear implant for speech perception, localization, and functional performance in everyday life.
DESIGN: Twenty-one adults (11 female and 10 male) who used either a Nucleus CI-22 (N = 3) or a Nucleus CI-24 (N = 18) cochlear implant system in one ear participated in this study. Twelve of the adults were experienced hearing aid and implant users, whereas nine did not use a hearing aid after implantation. The hearing aids were fitted using the NAL-NL1 prescription, and fine-tuned for each individual by using a paired-comparisons test to identify the frequency response that was best for understanding speech, and a loudness balancing test to find the hearing aid gain that gave the same overall loudness as that perceived in the ear with a cochlear implant. Effects from using a hearing aid with a cochlear implant (bimodal hearing) were assessed by three measures. These included speech perception in noise in diotic and dichotic listening conditions, horizontal localization, and functional performance in everyday life. Performance with cochlear implant and hearing aid (CIHA) was compared with that with cochlear implant alone (CI) and hearing aid alone (HA).
RESULTS: The NAL-NL1 prescribed appropriate frequency response slope on average, and the mean gain needed for binaural loudness balance was 4 dB lower than the prescribed gain. Individual variations in preferences suggest that it is desirable to fine-tune the hearing aid response slope and gain according to individual needs. The speech test results indicated that the CIHA scores were significantly better than the CI or the HA scores. Localization test results showed that the adults made significantly less error when locating a sound source using CIHA compared with CI or HA. Functional performance questionnaire scores for CIHA were significantly higher than CI scores or HA scores. All adults showed binaural benefits in at least one performance measure. On average, those who derived greater speech benefits also made less localization error and functioned more effectively in real life.
CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly indicate that binaural advantages can be obtained from using a hearing aid with a cochlear implant in opposite ears. It is recommended that bimodal stimulation be standard practice for rehabilitation of adults who wear unilateral cochlear implants. A hearing aid should be fitted to the nonimplanted ear using the NAL-NL1 prescription as a starting point, and the frequency response slope and gain could be fine-tuned to suit individual needs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14770014     DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000111261.84611.C8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  106 in total

1.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 2.  The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people-a personal perspective.

Authors:  Graeme M Clark
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-05-29       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Authors:  Benjamin M Sheffield; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Clinical selection criteria for a second cochlear implant for bimodal listeners.

Authors:  Yang-soo Yoon; You-Ree Shin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Jennifer R Fowler; Jessica L Eggleston; Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Perception of consonants in reverberation and noise by adults fitted with bimodal devices.

Authors:  Michelle Mason; Kostas Kokkinakis
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  The Effect of Cochlear Implant Interval on Spoken Language Skills of Pediatric Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Kaitlyn A Wenrich; Lisa S Davidson; Rosalie M Uchanski
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Jill B Firszt; Chris Brenner; Jamie H Cadieux
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.664

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

Authors:  Jamie H Cadieux; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 10.  Psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing: implications for perceiving speech and music via electric and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Christopher A Brown
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.