OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits of bimodal listening (i.e., addition of contralateral hearing aid) for cochlear implant (CI) users on real-world tasks involving high-talker variability speech materials, environmental sounds, and self-reported quality of life (quality of hearing) in listeners' own best-aided conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study between groups. SETTING: Outpatient hearing clinic. PATIENTS: Fifty experienced adult CI users divided into groups based on normal daily listening conditions (i.e., best-aided conditions): unilateral CI (CI), unilateral CI with contralateral HA (bimodal listening; CIHA), or bilateral CI (CICI). INTERVENTION: Task-specific measures of speech recognition with low (Harvard Standard Sentences) and high (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set corpus) talker variability, environmental sound recognition (Familiar Environmental Sounds Test-Identification), and hearing-related quality of life (Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test group differences among CI, CIHA, and CICI conditions. RESULTS: No group effect was observed for speech recognition with low or high-talker variability, or hearing-related quality of life. Bimodal listeners demonstrated a benefit in environmental sound recognition compared with unilateral CI listeners, with a trend of greater benefit than the bilateral CI group. There was also a visual trend for benefit on high-talker variability speech recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide evidence that bimodal listeners demonstrate stronger environmental sound recognition compared with unilateral CI listeners, and support the idea that there are additional advantages to bimodal listening after implantation other than speech recognition measures, which are at risk of being lost if considering bilateral implantation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits of bimodal listening (i.e., addition of contralateral hearing aid) for cochlear implant (CI) users on real-world tasks involving high-talker variability speech materials, environmental sounds, and self-reported quality of life (quality of hearing) in listeners' own best-aided conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study between groups. SETTING: Outpatient hearing clinic. PATIENTS: Fifty experienced adult CI users divided into groups based on normal daily listening conditions (i.e., best-aided conditions): unilateral CI (CI), unilateral CI with contralateral HA (bimodal listening; CIHA), or bilateral CI (CICI). INTERVENTION: Task-specific measures of speech recognition with low (Harvard Standard Sentences) and high (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set corpus) talker variability, environmental sound recognition (Familiar Environmental Sounds Test-Identification), and hearing-related quality of life (Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test group differences among CI, CIHA, and CICI conditions. RESULTS: No group effect was observed for speech recognition with low or high-talker variability, or hearing-related quality of life. Bimodal listeners demonstrated a benefit in environmental sound recognition compared with unilateral CI listeners, with a trend of greater benefit than the bilateral CI group. There was also a visual trend for benefit on high-talker variability speech recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide evidence that bimodal listeners demonstrate stronger environmental sound recognition compared with unilateral CI listeners, and support the idea that there are additional advantages to bimodal listening after implantation other than speech recognition measures, which are at risk of being lost if considering bilateral implantation.