Minimum intraoperative testing battery for cochlear implantation: the international practice trend.

PURPOSE: In cochlear implantation (CI) surgery, there are a wide variety of intraoperative tests available. However, no clear guide exists on which tests must be performed as the minimum intraoperative testing battery. Toward this end, we studied the usage patterns, recommendations, and attitudes of practitioners toward intraoperative testing. METHODS: This study is a multicentric international survey of tertiary referral CI centers. A survey was developed and administered to a group of CI practitioners (n = 34) including otologists, audiologists and biomedical engineers. Thirty six participants were invited to participate in this study based on a their scientific outputs to the literature on the intraoperative testing in CI field and based on their high load of CI surgeries. Thirty four, from 15 countries have accepted the invitation to participate. The participants were asked to indicate the usage trends, perceived value, influence on decision making and duration of each intraoperative test. They were also asked to indicate which tests they believe should be included in a minimum test battery for routine cases. RESULTS: Thirty-two (94%) experts provided responses. The most frequently recommended tests for a minimum battery were facial nerve monitoring, electrode impedance measurements, and measurements of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs). The perceived value and influence on surgical decision-making also varied, with high-resolution CT being rated the highest on both measures. CONCLUSION: Facial nerve monitoring, electrode impedance measurements, and ECAP measurements are currently the core tests of the intraoperative test battery for CI surgery.

Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: 12 Months Follow-up Results of a European Multicenter Evaluation.

People with single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have particular difficulty understanding speech in noisy listening situations and in sound localization. The objective of this multicenter study is to evaluate the effect of a cochlear implant (CI) in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), particularly regarding sound localization and speech intelligibility with additional interest in electric-acoustic pitch matching. A prospective longitudinal study at 7 European tertiary referral centers was conducted including 19 SSD and 16 AHL subjects undergoing cochlear implantation. Sound localization accuracy was investigated in terms of root mean square error and signed bias before and after implantation. Speech recognition in quiet and speech reception thresholds in noise for several spatial configurations were assessed preoperatively and at several post-activation time points. Pitch perception with CI was tracked using pitch matching. Data up to 12 months post activation were collected. In both SSD and AHL subjects, CI significantly improved sound localization for sound sources on the implant side, and thus overall sound localization. Speech recognition in quiet with the implant ear improved significantly. In noise, a significant head shadow effect was found for SSD subjects only. However, the evaluation of AHL subjects was limited by the small sample size. No uniform development of pitch perception with the implant ear was observed. The benefits shown in this study confirm and expand the existing body of evidence for the effectiveness of CI in SSD and AHL. Particularly, improved localization was shown to result from increased localization accuracy on the implant side.

International Consensus Statements on Intraoperative Testing for Cochlear Implantation Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: A wide variety of intraoperative tests are available in cochlear implantation. However, no consensus exists on which tests constitute the minimum necessary battery. We assembled an international panel of clinical experts to develop, refine, and vote upon a set of core consensus statements. DESIGN: A literature review was used to identify intraoperative tests currently used in the field and draft a set of provisional statements. For statement evaluation and refinement, we used a modified Delphi consensus panel structure. Multiple interactive rounds of voting, evaluation, and feedback were conducted to achieve convergence. RESULTS: Twenty-nine provisional statements were included in the original draft. In the first voting round, consensus was reached on 15 statements. Of the 14 statements that did not reach consensus, 12 were revised based on feedback provided by the expert practitioners, and 2 were eliminated. In the second voting round, 10 of the 12 revised statements reached a consensus. The two statements which did not achieve consensus were further revised and subjected to a third voting round. However, both statements failed to achieve consensus in the third round. In addition, during the final revision, one more statement was decided to be deleted due to overlap with another modified statement. CONCLUSIONS: A final core set of 24 consensus statements was generated, covering wide areas of intraoperative testing during CI surgery. These statements may provide utility as evidence-based guidelines to improve quality and achieve uniformity of surgical practice.

Masked Speech Perception with Bone Conduction Device, Contralateral Routing of Signals Hearing Aid, and Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Single-Sided Deafness: A Prospective Hearing Device Comparison using a Unified Testing Framework.

INTRODUCTION: For the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD), common treatment choices include a contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aid, a bone conduction device (BCD), and a cochlear implant (CI). The primary aim of this study was to compare speech understanding in noise and binaural benefits in adults with postlingual SSD between preoperative unaided baseline, preoperative CROS and BCD trial devices, and CI, following recommendations from a consensus protocol. In addition, we investigated the effect of masker type on speech understanding. METHODS: This was a prospective study with twelve participants. Binaural effects of head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking were assessed by measuring speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in five different spatial target-masker configurations using two different maskers: two-talker babble (TTB), and speech-shaped noise (SSN). Preoperatively, participants were assessed unaided and with CROS and BCD trial devices. After cochlear implantation, participants were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation. RESULTS: For TTB, significant improvements in SRT with a CI relative to preoperatively unaided were found in all spatial configurations. With CI at 6 months, median benefits were 7.8 dB in SSSDNAH and 5.1 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 3.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), and 4.6 dB in S0NSSD and 5.1 dB in SAHNSSD (squelch). CROS yielded a significant head shadow benefit of 2.4 dB in SSSDNAH and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.5 dB in S0NSSD and SAHNSSD, but no summation effect. With BCD, there was a significant summation benefit of 1.5 dB, but no head shadow nor squelch effect. For SSN, significant improvements in SRT with CI compared to preoperatively unaided were found in three spatial configurations. Median benefits with CI at 6 months were: 8.5 dB in SSSDNAH and 4.6 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 1.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), but no squelch. CROS showed a significant head shadow benefit of 1.7 dB in SSSDNAH, but no summation effect, and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.9 dB in S0NSSD and 3.2 dB in SAHNSSD. With BCD, no binaural effect was obtained. Longitudinally, we found significant head shadow benefits with a CI in SSSDNAH in both maskers at all postoperative intervals and in S0NAH at 3 and 6 months post-activation. CONCLUSION: With a CI, a clear benefit for masked speech perception was observed for all binaural effects. Benefits with CROS and BCD were more limited. CROS usage was detrimental to the squelch effect.

Investigation of Maximum Monosyllabic Word Recognition as a Predictor of Speech Understanding with Cochlear Implant.

Background: The cochlear implant (CI) is an established treatment option for patients with inadequate speech understanding and insufficient aided scores. Nevertheless, reliable predictive models and specific therapy goals regarding achievable speech understanding are still lacking. Method: In this retrospective study, 601 cases of CI fittings between 2005 and 2021 at the University Medical Center Freiburg were analyzed. We investigated the preoperative unaided maximum word recognition score (mWRS) as a minimum predictor for post-interventional scores at 65 dB SPL, WRS65(CI). The WRS65(CI) was compared with the preoperative-aided WRS, and a previously published prediction model for the WRS65(CI) was reviewed. Furthermore, the effect of duration of hearing loss, duration of HA fitting, and etiology on WRS65(CI) were investigated. Results: In 95.5% of the cases, a significant improvement in word recognition was observed after CI. WRS65(CI) achieved or exceeded mWRS in 97% of cases. Etiology had a significant impact on WRS65(CI). The predicted score was missed by more than 20 percentage points in 12.8% of cases. Discussion: Our results confirmed the minimum prediction via mWRS. A more precise prediction of the expected WRS65(CI) is possible. The etiology of hearing loss should be considered in the indication and postoperative care to achieve optimal results.

Speech Understanding and Subjective Listening Effort in Noise With Different OTEs and Sound Processing Technologies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise and subjective listening effort (LE) in cochlear implant (CI) recipients for application of three sound processing (SP) technologies with two off-the-ear (OTE) CI sound processors, a fixed moderately directional microphone (Standard), an adaptive directional microphone (Beam), and the spatial noise-reduction setting ForwardFocus, with the Kanso 2 (OTE2), and Beam with the Kanso (OTE1). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective repeated measures, within-subject design. SETTING: Single tertiary-referral center. PATIENTS: Twenty CI recipients with bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SRTs were assessed in two spatial configurations with frontal speech and noise from 90-180-270 degrees (S0N90-180-270) or from the CI side (S0NCI). SRTs were obtained for sentences of the Oldenburg sentence test presented in International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) noise ICRA5-250. LE for speech understanding in noise was evaluated in S0N90-180-270 and assessed in effort scale categorical units (ESCUs) by using Adaptive Categorical Listening Effort Scaling (ACALES). LEs at 5-dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were calculated from fitted psychometric curves. RESULTS: With OTE2 in S0N90-180-270, SRT with ForwardFocus (-4.28 dB SNR) was better than with Beam (-3.13 dB SNR) and Standard (0.43 dB SNR). ForwardFocus showed lower LE5dB (2.61 ESCU) compared with Beam (4.60 ESCU) and Standard (5.32 ESCU). In a comparison of both OTEs in S0N90-180-270 regarding best-performing SP technology, ForwardFocus with OTE2 yielded a better SRT and better LE5dB than Beam with OTE1 (SRT: -1.70 dB SNR; LE5dB: 4.00 ESCU). With OTE2 in S0NCI, SRT was improved with ForwardFocus (-2.78 dB SNR) compared with Beam (-1.23 dB SNR) and Standard (1.83 dB SNR). CONCLUSION: With respect to SP technology and OTE, CI recipients experience best SRT and lowest LE in S0N90-180-270 when using ForwardFocus with OTE2. ACALES is feasible for assessing subjective LE in CI recipients.

Long-Term Outcome of Cochlear Implantation in Children With Congenital, Perilingual, and Postlingual Single-Sided Deafness.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the long-term outcomes of children with single-sided deafness (SSD) after cochlear implant (CI) surgery, during and after rehabilitation, and compared the results of children with congenital, perilingual, and postlingual SSD. We evaluated the impact of SSD at age at onset and duration of deafness on their performance. DESIGN: Thirty-six children with SSD treated with CI participated in the study: 20 had congenital, seven perilingual (defined: >0 to 4 years), and nine had postlingual deafness (defined as >4 years of age). Their outcome with CI were measured on both subjective and objective scales: duration of device use, speech intelligibility in noise and in quiet, bilateral hearing and localization ability, quality of life and hearing, presence and loudness of tinnitus, and hearing ability of the better hearing ear. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up time of 4.75 years, 32 of the 36 children used their CI on a regular basis. The remaining four children were nonusers. These children had congenital SSD and were older than three years at the time of CI surgery. Overall, for congenital/perilingual and postlingual SSD, speech intelligibility in noise and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) speech subscore were significantly improved, as were their subjective and objective localization ability and hearing-related quality of life. Children with postlingual SSD benefited from the CI with regard to speech intelligibility, SSQ speech/spatial/total score, and localization error, and children with congenital SSD showed better results with a short duration of deafness of less than 3 years compared with those with a longer deafness period. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implantation is a successful treatment for children with congenital/perilingual or postlingual SSD. Results largely differed with respect to the onset and duration of deafness, and better outcomes were achieved by children with postlingual SSD and with a short duration of deafness. Our data also confirmed that children with congenital SSD should be implanted with a CI within three years of age.

Prediction of postoperative speech comprehension with the transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®.

BACKGROUND: The active transcutaneous, partially implantable osseointegrated bone conduction system Cochlear™ Osia® (Cochlear, Sydney, Australia) has been approved for use in German-speaking countries since April 2021. The Osia is indicated for patients either having conductive (CHL) or mixed hearing loss (MHL) with an average bone conduction (BC) hearing loss of 55 dB HL or less, or having single-sided deafness (SSD). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the prediction of postoperative speech recognition with Osia® and to evaluate the speech recognition of patients with MHL and in particular an aided dynamic range of less than 30 dB with Osia®. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2017 and 2022, 29 adult patients were fitted with the Osia®, 10 patients (11 ears) with CHL and 19 patients (25 ears) with MHL. MHL was subdivided into two groups: MHL­I with four-frequency pure-tone average in BC (BC-4PTA) ≥ 20 dB HL and < 40 dB HL (n = 15 patients; 20 ears) vs. MHL-II with BC-4PTA ≥ 40 dB HL (n = 4 patients; 5 ears). All patients tested a bone conduction hearing device on a softband preoperatively. Speech intelligibility in quiet was assessed preoperatively using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in unaided condition, with the trial BCHD preoperatively and with Osia® postoperatively with Osia®. The maximum word recognition score (mWRS) unaided and the word recognition score (WRS) with the test system at 65 dB SPL were correlated with the postoperative WRS with Osia® at 65 dB SPL. RESULTS: Preoperative prediction of postoperative outcome with Osia® was better using the mWRS than by the WRS at 65 dB SPL with the test device on the softband. Postoperative WRS was most predictive for patients with CHL and less predictable for patients with mixed hearing loss with BC-4PTA ≥ 40 dB HL. For the test device on a softband, the achievable outcome tended to a minimum, with the mWRS tending to predict the realistically achievable outcome. CONCLUSION: Osia® can be used for the treatment of CHL and MHL within the indication limits. The average preoperative bone conduction hearing threshold also provides an approximate estimate of the postoperative WRS with Osia®, for which the most accurate prediction is obtained using the preoperative mWRS. Prediction accuracy decreases from a BC-4PTA of ≥ 40 dB HL.

[Prediction of speech understanding with the transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®. German Version]. / Vorhersage des postoperativen Sprachverstehens mit dem transkutanen teilimplantierbaren Knochenleitungshörsystem Osia®.

BACKGROUND: The active transcutaneous, partially implantable osseointegrated bone conduction system Cochlear™ Osia® (Cochlear, Sydney, Australia) has been approved for use in German-speaking countries since April 2021. The Osia is indicated for patients with conductive (CHL) or mixed hearing loss (MHL) with an average bone conduction (BC) hearing loss of 55 dB or less, or with single-sided deafness (SSD). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the prediction of postoperative speech recognition with Osia and to evaluate the speech recognition of patients with MHL and an aided dynamic range of less than 30 dB with Osia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2017 and 2022, 29 adult patients were fitted with the Osia, 10 patients (11 ears) with CHL and 19 patients (21 ears) with MHL. MHL was subdivided into two groups: MHL­I with four-frequency pure-tone average in BC (BC-4PTA) ≥ 20 dB HL and < 40 dB HL (n = 15 patients; 20 ears) vs. MHL-II with BC-4PTA ≥ 40 dB HL (n = 4 patients; 5 ears). All patients tested a bone conduction hearing device on a softband preoperatively. Speech intelligibility in quiet was assessed preoperatively using the Freiburg monosyllabic test unaided and with the test system and postoperatively with Osia. The maximum monosyllabic score (mEV) unaided and the monosyllabic score with the test system at 65 dB SPL were correlated with the postoperative monosyllabic score with Osia at 65 dB SPL. RESULTS: Preoperative prediction of postoperative outcome with Osia was better using the mEV than the EV at 65 dB SPL with the test device on the softband. Postoperative EV was most predictive for patients with CHL and least predictive for patients with mixed hearing loss with 4PTA BC ≥ 40 dB HL. For the test device at softband, results tended to show the minimum achievable outcome and the mEV tended to predict the realistically achievable outcome. CONCLUSION: Osia can be used for the treatment of CHL and MHL within the indication limits. The average preoperative bone conduction hearing threshold also provides an approximate estimate of the postoperative EV with Osia, for which the most accurate prediction is obtained using the preoperative mEV. Prediction accuracy decreases from a BC-4PTA of ≥ 40 dB.

Spatial speech-in-noise performance in simulated single-sided deaf and bimodal cochlear implant users in comparison with real patients.

OBJECTIVE: Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in spatial scenarios were measured in simulated cochlear implant (CI) listeners with either contralateral normal hearing, or aided hearing impairment (bimodal), and compared to SRTs of real patients, who were measured using the exact same paradigm, to assess goodness of simulation. DESIGN: CI listening was simulated using a vocoder incorporating actual CI signal processing and physiologic details of electric stimulation on one side. Unprocessed signals or simulation of aided moderate or profound hearing impairment was used contralaterally. Three spatial speech-in-noise scenarios were tested using virtual acoustics to assess spatial release from masking (SRM) and combined benefit. STUDY SAMPLE: Eleven normal-hearing listeners participated in the experiment. RESULTS: For contralateral normal and aided moderately impaired hearing, bilaterally assessed SRTs were not statistically different from unilateral SRTs of the better ear, indicating "better-ear-listening". Combined benefit was only found for contralateral profound impaired hearing. As in patients, SRM was highest for contralateral normal hearing and decreased systematically with more severe simulated impairment. Comparison to actual patients showed good reproduction of SRTs, SRM, and better-ear-listening. CONCLUSIONS: The simulations reproduced better-ear-listening as in patients and suggest that combined benefit in spatial scenes predominantly occurs when both ears show poor speech-in-noise performance.

Binaural Integration of Spectrally Degraded Speech in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients with Single-Sided Deafness.

INTRODUCTION: Our purpose was to investigate binaural integration for spectrally degraded speech in normal-hearing (NH) subjects, single-sided deafness (SSD) cochlear implant (CI) recipients, and bilateral deaf bilateral CI recipients. METHODS: We tested ten adult subjects in each group with a modified version of the binaural fusion test according to Matzker. Speech recognition was assessed for monotic listening with the better-hearing ear or CI, monotic listening with the poorer-hearing ear or CI, and dichotic listening. We employed two presentation modes: (1) low pass (LP)-filtered speech to the better ear or CI and high pass (HP)-filtered speech to the poorer ear or CI, and (2) LP-filtered speech to the poorer ear or CI and HP-filtered speech to the better ear or CI. Five magnitudes of LP and HP filtering, i.e., spectral degradation, for each presentation mode were applied yielding two spectrally overlapping and three nonoverlapping presentation conditions. Sentences from the Oldenburg Children's sentence test were applied to assess speech recognition. RESULTS: NH subjects, SSD CI recipients, and bilateral CI recipients were able to understand spectrally degraded speech under both monotic and dichotic listening conditions for both the presentation modes. Speech performance decreased with the increasing loss of spectral information in all the three subject groups. In the NH subjects, speech recognition scores significantly improved for dichotic compared with each monotic listening type under two spectrally nonoverlapping conditions. The SSD CI subjects showed a significant improvement in speech scores for dichotic listening compared with monotic listening with the NH ear under one nonoverlapping condition, i.e., a dichotic benefit in speech recognition with CI. We saw a dichotic benefit in the bilateral CI recipients who achieved significantly better speech scores for dichotic compared with monotic listening with the better CI in three nonoverlapping conditions. CONCLUSIONS: All the three groups (NH subjects, SSD CI recipients, and BiCI recipients) showed binaural integration for the side-separated presentation of spectrally degraded speech. Use of strictly side-separated dichotic stimulus presentation avoided the possible occurrence of physical effects such as the head shadow effect and therefore, confirmed the binaural benefit attributable to central binaural processing.

Instant improvement in monaural spatial hearing abilities through cognitive feedback.

Several studies report that sound localization performance of acute and chronic monauralized normal-hearing listeners can improve through training. Typically, training sessions are administered daily for several days or weeks. While this intensive training is effective, it may also be that monaural localization abilities improve instantly after providing explicit top-down information about the direction dependent change in timbre and level. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether cognitive feedback (i.e., top-down information) could instantly improve sound localization in naive acutely monauralized listeners. Forty-three normal-hearing listeners (experimental group), divided over five different centers, were tested. Two control groups, consisting of, respectively, nine and eleven normal-hearing listeners, were tested in one center. Broadband sounds (0.5-20 kHz) were presented from visible loudspeakers, positioned in azimuth (- 90° to 90°). Participants in the experimental group received explicit information about the noticeable difference in timbre and the poor localization in the monauralized listening condition, resulting in an instant improvement in sound localization abilities. With subsequent roving of stimulus level (20 dB), sound localization performance deteriorated immediately. The reported improvement is related to the context of the localization test. The results provide important implications for studies investigating sound localization in a clinical setting, especially during closed-set testing, and indicate the importance of top-down information.

Effect of adaptive beamforming and noise reduction algorithms on speech intelligibility and noise tolerance in bimodal cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a directional microphone (beamformer) and continuous noise reduction algorithms (CNRs) in bimodally aided cochlear implant (CI) users and to find the optimum hearing aid (HA) and CI settings of the beamformer and CNRs. METHODS: Speech reception threshold (SRT) and acceptable noise level (ANL) were assessed in twelve adult CI users for unilateral CI, unilateral HA and bimodal listening. To assess the effect of the UltraZoom beamformer and the ClearVoice™ and NoiseBlock CNRs on SRT and ANL, speech was presented from the front in multi-source speech-shaped noise. RESULTS: With unilateral CI, application of UltraZoom resulted in a significant improvement of the median SRT and ANL by 3.8 and 4.3 dB, respectively. For bimodal listening with UltraZoom, a significant improvement of 3.5 dB in median SRT was found. There was no significant effect of using the CNRs on speech intelligibility in noise or noise tolerance in either listening condition. CONCLUSION: UltraZoom should be applied on the CI to improve speech intelligibility in face to face conversations with multi-source background noise. However, due to the heterogeneous data, no recommendations for the settings of UltraZoom on the HA or of ClearVoice/NoiseBlock on either device can be given. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register identifier: DRKS00010807.

Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. METHODS: Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. RESULTS: 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. CONCLUSION: The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®.

PURPOSE: The new active transcutaneous partially implantable osseointegrated system Cochlear™ Osia® System is indicated in case of conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL/MHL) with a maximum average bone conduction hearing loss of 55 dB, or in single-sided deafness (SSD). The implant directly stimulates the bone via a piezoelectric transducer and is directed by an external sound processor. We conducted a monocentric retrospective longitudinal within-subject clinical study at our tertiary academic referral center. The aim was to investigate long-term data (2017-2021) on audiological outcomes and hearing-related quality of life for the Osia system. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2020, 22 adults (18: CHL/MHL; 3: SSD) were implanted with the Osia100 implant; seven received bilateral implants. As of 10/2020, the sound processor was upgraded to Osia 2. RESULTS: Mean Osia system use by 04/2021 was 30.9 ± 8.6 months (range 17-40 months). Unaided bone conduction thresholds were unchanged postoperatively. One patient had to be explanted because of prolonged wound infection. Aided hearing thresholds were significantly lower compared to the unaided thresholds preoperatively, along with a marked increase in speech recognition in quiet. Speech processor upgrade resulted in a stable benefit. Patients with CHL/MHL and SSD showed a similar improvement in self-rated hearing performance revealed by SSQ, APHAB, and HUI questionnaires. CONCLUSION: The Osia system is a safe, effective and sustainable option for treatment of conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness.

PET/CT background noise and its effect on speech recognition.

Positron emission tomography (PET) has been successfully used to investigate central nervous processes, including the central auditory pathway. Unlike early water-cooled PET-scanners, novel PET/CT scanners employ air cooling and include a CT system, both of which result in higher background noise levels. In the present study, we describe the background noise generated by two state-of-the-art air-cooled PET/CT scanners. We measured speech recognition in background noise: recorded PET noise and a speech-shaped noise applied in clinical routine to subjects with normal hearing. Background noise produced by air-cooled PET/CT is considerable: 75.1 dB SPL (64.5 dB(A)) for the Philips Gemini TF64 and 76.9 dB SPL (68.4 dB(A)) for the Philips Vereos PET/CT (Philips Healthcare, The Netherlands). Subjects with normal hearing exhibited better speech recognition in recorded PET background noise compared with clinically applied speech-shaped noise. Speech recognition in both background noises correlated significantly. Background noise generated by PET/CT scanners should be considered when PET is used for the investigation of the central auditory pathway. Speech in PET noise is better than in speech-shaped noise because of the minor masking effect of the background noise of the PET/CT.

Speech Intelligibility and Spatial Release From Masking Improvements Using Spatial Noise Reduction Algorithms in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.

This study investigated the speech intelligibility benefit of using two different spatial noise reduction algorithms in cochlear implant (CI) users who use a hearing aid (HA) on the contralateral side (bimodal CI users). The study controlled for head movements by using head-related impulse responses to simulate a realistic cafeteria scenario and controlled for HA and CI manufacturer differences by using the master hearing aid platform (MHA) to apply both hearing loss compensation and the noise reduction algorithms (beamformers). Ten bimodal CI users with moderate to severe hearing loss contralateral to their CI participated in the study, and data from nine listeners were included in the data analysis. The beamformers evaluated were the adaptive differential microphones (ADM) implemented independently on each side of the listener and the (binaurally implemented) minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR). For frontal speech and stationary noise from either left or right, an improvement (reduction) of the speech reception threshold of 5.4 dB and 5.5 dB was observed using the ADM, and 6.4 dB and 7.0 dB using the MVDR, respectively. As expected, no improvement was observed for either algorithm for colocated speech and noise. In a 20-talker babble noise scenario, the benefit observed was 3.5 dB for ADM and 7.5 dB for MVDR. The binaural MVDR algorithm outperformed the bilaterally applied monaural ADM. These results encourage the use of beamformer algorithms such as the ADM and MVDR by bimodal CI users in everyday life scenarios.

Is the cochlear implant a successful long-term solution for single-sided deaf and asymmetric hearing-impaired patients?

PURPOSE: We investigated the long-term results of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) or single-sided deafness (SSD). We focused on wearing behavior, audiometric hearing rehabilitation, and subjective benefits of the CI. CI is expected to improve audiological results, subjective hearing perception, and tinnitus burden. METHODS: Speech recognition in background noise and sound localization were assessed preoperatively and after at least six years of CI experience. Validated questionnaires determined the subjective benefit of CI use and the subjective evaluation of tinnitus. RESULTS: Over 80% of the included AHL and SSD CI recipients used their CI between 6 and 10 h daily; four subjects with SSD were non-users. Speech recognition in background noise and sound localization improved significantly compared with the unaided preoperative situation. Additionally, CI improved subjective speech intelligibility and spatial hearing impression while reducing tinnitus burden. CONCLUSION: Subjects with AHL and SSD benefit from CI, subjectively and audiologically. Cochlear implant is a successful long-term treatment for AHL and SSD.