René H Gifford1, Colin L W Driscoll, Timothy J Davis, Pam Fiebig, Alan Micco, Michael F Dorman. 1. *Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee; †Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ‡School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; and §Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare speech understanding with bimodal hearing and bilateral cochlear implants (CIs). STUDY DESIGN: Within-subjects, repeated-measures. METHODS: Speech understanding was assessed in the following conditions: unilateral hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear, unilateral CI, bimodal (CI + HA), and bilateral CI. In addition, three participants had bilateral hearing preservation and were also tested with bilateral CIs and bilateral HAs (BiBi). SETTING: Tertiary academic CI center. PATIENTS: Eight adult sequential bilateral recipients who, despite achieving incredibly high performance with the first CI, self-selected for bilateral cochlear implantation. INTERVENTION(S): Bilateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Speech understanding for the adult minimum speech test battery as well as sentences in semidiffuse noise using the R-SPACE system. RESULTS: Bilateral CIs afforded significant individual improvement in a complex listening environment even for individuals demonstrating near perfect sentence scores with both the first CI alone as well as the bimodal condition. The 3 BiBi participants demonstrated additional significant benefit over the bilateral CI condition-presumably because of the availability of interaural time difference cues. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, for noisy environments, adding a second implant can significantly improve speech understanding-even for high-performing unilateral CI with bimodal hearing. In diffuse noise conditions, bilateral acoustic hearing can yield even greater benefits beyond that offered by bilateral implantation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare speech understanding with bimodal hearing and bilateral cochlear implants (CIs). STUDY DESIGN: Within-subjects, repeated-measures. METHODS: Speech understanding was assessed in the following conditions: unilateral hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear, unilateral CI, bimodal (CI + HA), and bilateral CI. In addition, three participants had bilateral hearing preservation and were also tested with bilateral CIs and bilateral HAs (BiBi). SETTING: Tertiary academic CI center. PATIENTS: Eight adult sequential bilateral recipients who, despite achieving incredibly high performance with the first CI, self-selected for bilateral cochlear implantation. INTERVENTION(S): Bilateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Speech understanding for the adult minimum speech test battery as well as sentences in semidiffuse noise using the R-SPACE system. RESULTS: Bilateral CIs afforded significant individual improvement in a complex listening environment even for individuals demonstrating near perfect sentence scores with both the first CI alone as well as the bimodal condition. The 3 BiBi participants demonstrated additional significant benefit over the bilateral CI condition-presumably because of the availability of interaural time difference cues. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, for noisy environments, adding a second implant can significantly improve speech understanding-even for high-performing unilateral CI with bimodal hearing. In diffuse noise conditions, bilateral acoustic hearing can yield even greater benefits beyond that offered by bilateral implantation.
Authors: P J Blamey; B C Pyman; M Gordon; G M Clark; A M Brown; R C Dowell; R D Hollow Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Sterling W Sheffield; Kate Teece; Amy P Olund Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: B J Gantz; R S Tyler; J F Knutson; G Woodworth; P Abbas; B F McCabe; J Hinrichs; N Tye-Murray; C Lansing; F Kuk Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 1988-10 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Susan Nittrouer; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; Eric Tarr; Joanna H Lowenstein; Caitlin Rice; Aaron C Moberly Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 May-Jun 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: Fawen Zhang; Gabrielle Underwood; Kelli McGuire; Chun Liang; David R Moore; Qian-Jie Fu Journal: Hear Res Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 3.208
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: Douglas P Sladen; René H Gifford; David Haynes; David Kelsall; Aaron Benson; Kristen Lewis; Teresa Zwolan; Qian-Jie Fu; Bruce Gantz; Jan Gilden; Brian Westerberg; Cindy Gustin; Lori O'Neil; Colin L Driscoll Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Robert T Dwyer; Tony Spahr; Smita Agrawal; Chris Hetlinger; Jourdan T Holder; René H Gifford Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Elizabeth Perkins; Jaclyn Lee; Nauman Manzoor; Matthew O'Malley; Marc Bennett; Robert Labadie; Alejandro Rivas; David Haynes; René Gifford Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.311