Michal Luntz1, Dana Egra-Dagan, Joseph Attias, Noam Yehudai, Tova Most, Talma Shpak. 1. *Ear and Hearing Program, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Technion-Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel; †Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel; and ‡School of Education, Department of Communication Disorders, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare within-subject bilateral-binaural and bimodal complementary abilities between bimodal (cochlear implant and hearing aid; CI/HA) and bilateral CI hearing (CI/CI), thereby enabling better-informed counseling of experienced CI/HA users contemplating contralateral implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative within-subject case review. SETTING: Outpatient hearing clinic. PATIENTS: Ten experienced adult CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, who converted to CI/CI between 2 and 11 years after initial implantation. INTERVENTION: Task-specific testing of bilateral-binaural hearing (sound lateralization, binaural summation/redundancy/unmasking, head-shadow effect), bimodal complementary benefit (contribution of low-frequency information), and a self-report Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaire, all before and 1 year after contralateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test result differences between CI/HA and CI/CI conditions. RESULTS: CI/CI hearing was better than CI/HA for speech lateralization and for perception of semantically unpredictable sentences in speech noise with speech at 0 degrees and noise at +90 degrees azimuth on the old CI side. CI/HA was better than CI/CI only for differences between perception of natural prosody speech and of speech with flattened fundamental frequency (F0) contour with speech and noise in front (at 0 degrees azimuth). Total scores on the SSQ questionnaire were higher in CI/CI than in CI/HA users. CONCLUSION: Counseling regarding contralateral implantation for CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, though generally positive, should consider individual functional needs, and cover expectations about the expected trade-off between gaining improved understanding and speech lateralization in challenging listening conditions and losing some low-frequency cues still available with CI/HA hearing.
OBJECTIVE: To compare within-subject bilateral-binaural and bimodal complementary abilities between bimodal (cochlear implant and hearing aid; CI/HA) and bilateral CI hearing (CI/CI), thereby enabling better-informed counseling of experienced CI/HA users contemplating contralateral implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative within-subject case review. SETTING:Outpatient hearing clinic. PATIENTS: Ten experienced adult CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, who converted to CI/CI between 2 and 11 years after initial implantation. INTERVENTION: Task-specific testing of bilateral-binaural hearing (sound lateralization, binaural summation/redundancy/unmasking, head-shadow effect), bimodal complementary benefit (contribution of low-frequency information), and a self-report Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaire, all before and 1 year after contralateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test result differences between CI/HA and CI/CI conditions. RESULTS: CI/CI hearing was better than CI/HA for speech lateralization and for perception of semantically unpredictable sentences in speech noise with speech at 0 degrees and noise at +90 degrees azimuth on the old CI side. CI/HA was better than CI/CI only for differences between perception of natural prosody speech and of speech with flattened fundamental frequency (F0) contour with speech and noise in front (at 0 degrees azimuth). Total scores on the SSQ questionnaire were higher in CI/CI than in CI/HA users. CONCLUSION: Counseling regarding contralateral implantation for CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, though generally positive, should consider individual functional needs, and cover expectations about the expected trade-off between gaining improved understanding and speech lateralization in challenging listening conditions and losing some low-frequency cues still available with CI/HA hearing.
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