PURPOSE: The use of bilateral stimulation is becoming common for cochlear implant (CI) recipients with either (a) a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the nonimplanted ear (CI&HA-bimodal) or (b) CIs in both ears (CI&CI-bilateral). The objective of this study was to evaluate 4 individuals who transitioned from bimodal to bilateral stimulation. METHOD: Participants had completed a larger study of bimodal hearing and subsequently received a second CI. Test procedures from the bimodal study, including roaming speech recognition, localization, and a questionnaire (the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale; Gatehouse & Noble, 2004) were repeated after 6-7 months of bilateral CI experience. RESULTS: Speech recognition and localization were not significantly different between bimodal and unilateral CI. In contrast, performance was significantly better with CI&CI compared with unilateral CI. Speech recognition with CI&CI was significantly better than with CI&HA for 2 of 4 participants. Localization was significantly better for all participants with CI&CI compared with CI&HA. CI&CI performance was rated as significantly better on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale compared with CI&HA. CONCLUSIONS: There was a strong preference for CI&CI for all participants. The variability in speech recognition and localization, however, suggests that performance under these stimulus conditions is individualized. Differences in hearing and/or HA history may explain performance differences.
PURPOSE: The use of bilateral stimulation is becoming common for cochlear implant (CI) recipients with either (a) a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the nonimplanted ear (CI&HA-bimodal) or (b) CIs in both ears (CI&CI-bilateral). The objective of this study was to evaluate 4 individuals who transitioned from bimodal to bilateral stimulation. METHOD:Participants had completed a larger study of bimodal hearing and subsequently received a second CI. Test procedures from the bimodal study, including roaming speech recognition, localization, and a questionnaire (the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale; Gatehouse & Noble, 2004) were repeated after 6-7 months of bilateral CI experience. RESULTS: Speech recognition and localization were not significantly different between bimodal and unilateral CI. In contrast, performance was significantly better with CI&CI compared with unilateral CI. Speech recognition with CI&CI was significantly better than with CI&HA for 2 of 4 participants. Localization was significantly better for all participants with CI&CI compared with CI&HA. CI&CI performance was rated as significantly better on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale compared with CI&HA. CONCLUSIONS: There was a strong preference for CI&CI for all participants. The variability in speech recognition and localization, however, suggests that performance under these stimulus conditions is individualized. Differences in hearing and/or HA history may explain performance differences.
Authors: Richard S Tyler; Aaron J Parkinson; Blake S Wilson; Shelley Witt; John P Preece; William Noble Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Robert J Yawn; Brendan P O'Connell; Robert T Dwyer; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Susan Reynolds; David S Haynes; René H Gifford Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: René H Gifford; Colin L W Driscoll; Timothy J Davis; Pam Fiebig; Alan Micco; Michael F Dorman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 6.223