CROS or hearing aid? Selecting the ideal solution for unilateral CI patients with limited aidable hearing in the contralateral ear.

A hearing aid or a contralateral routing of signal device are options for unilateral cochlear implant listeners with limited hearing in the unimplanted ear; however, it is uncertain which device provides greater benefit beyond unilateral listening alone. Eighteen unilateral cochlear implant listeners participated in this prospective, within-participants, repeated measures study. Participants were tested with the cochlear implant alone, cochlear implant + hearing aid, and cochlear implant + contralateral routing of signal device configurations with a one-month take-home period between each in-person visit. Audiograms, speech perception in noise, and lateralization were evaluated. Subjective feedback was obtained via questionnaires. Marked improvement in speech in noise and non-implanted ear lateralization accuracy were observed with the addition of a contralateral hearing aid. There were no significant differences in speech recognition between listening configurations. However, the chronic device use questionnaires and the final device selection showed a clear preference for the hearing aid in spatial awareness and communication domains. Individuals with limited hearing in their unimplanted ears demonstrate significant improvement with the addition of a contralateral device. Subjective questionnaires somewhat contrast with clinic-based outcome measures, highlighting the delicate decision-making process involved in clinically advising one device or another to maximize communication benefits.

Participant-generated Cochlear Implant Programs: Speech Recognition, Sound Quality, and Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-derived programming of one's cochlear implant (CI) stimulation levels may affect performance outcomes. BACKGROUND: Increases in patient population, device complexity, outcome expectations, and clinician responsibility have demonstrated the necessity for improved clinical efficiency. METHODS: Eighteen postlingually deafened adult CI recipients (mean = 53 years; range, 24-83 years) participated in a repeated-measures, within-participant study designed to compare their baseline listening program to an experimental program they created. RESULTS: No significant group differences in aided sound-field thresholds, monosyllabic word recognition, speech understanding in quiet, speech understanding in noise, nor spectral modulation detection (SMD) were observed (p > 0.05). Four ears (17%) improved with the experimental program for speech presented at 45 dB SPL and two ears (9%) performed worse. Six ears (27.3%) improved significantly with the self-fit program at +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and four ears (26.6%) improved in speech understanding at +5 dB SNR. No individual scored significantly worse when speech was presented in quiet at 60 dB SPL or in any of the noise conditions tested. All but one participant opted to keep at least one of the self-fitting programs at the completion of this study. Participants viewed the process of creating their program more favorably (t = 2.11, p = 0.012) and thought creating the program was easier than the traditional fitting methodology (t = 2.12, p = 0.003). Average time to create the self-fit program was 10 minutes, 10 seconds (mean = 9:22; range, 4:46-24:40). CONCLUSIONS: Allowing experienced adult CI recipients to set their own stimulation levels without clinical guidance is not detrimental to success.