Evaluating hearing performance with cochlear implants within the same patient using daily randomization and imaging-based fitting - The ELEPHANT study.

BACKGROUND: Prospective research in the field of cochlear implants is hampered by methodological issues and small sample sizes. The ELEPHANT study presents an alternative clinical trial design with a daily randomized approach evaluating individualized tonotopical fitting of a cochlear implant (CI). METHODS: A single-blinded, daily-randomized clinical trial will be implemented to evaluate a new imaging-based CI mapping strategy. A minimum of 20 participants will be included from the start of the rehabilitation process with a 1-year follow-up period. Based on a post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT), mapping of electrical input will be aligned to natural place-pitch arrangement in the individual cochlea. The CI's frequency allocation table will be adjusted to match the electrical stimulation of frequencies as closely as possible to corresponding acoustic locations in the cochlea. A randomization scheme will be implemented whereby the participant, blinded to the intervention allocation, crosses over between the experimental and standard fitting program on a daily basis, and thus effectively acts as his own control, followed by a period of free choice between both maps to incorporate patient preference. With this new approach the occurrence of a first-order carryover effect and a limited sample size is addressed. DISCUSSION: The experimental fitting strategy is thought to give rise to a steeper learning curve, result in better performance in challenging listening situations, improve sound quality, better complement residual acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear and be preferred by recipients of a CI. Concurrently, the suitability of the novel trial design will be considered in investigating these hypotheses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03892941. Registered 27 March 2019.

Objective Binaural Loudness Balancing Based on 40-Hz Auditory Steady-State Responses. Part II: Asymmetric and Bimodal Hearing.

In Part I, we investigated 40-Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) amplitudes for the use of objective loudness balancing across the ears for normal-hearing participants and found median across-ear ratios in ASSR amplitudes close to 1. In this part, we further investigated whether the ASSR can be used to estimate binaural loudness balance for listeners with asymmetric hearing, for whom binaural loudness balancing is of particular interest. We tested participants with asymmetric hearing and participants with bimodal hearing, who hear with electrical stimulation through a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and with acoustical stimulation in the other ear. Behavioral loudness balancing was performed at different percentages of the dynamic range. Acoustical carrier frequencies were 500, 1000, or 2000 Hz, and CI channels were stimulated in apical or middle regions in the cochlea. For both groups, the ASSR amplitudes at balanced loudness levels were similar for the two ears, with median ratios between left and right ear stimulation close to 1. However, individual variability was observed. For participants with asymmetric hearing loss, the difference between the behavioral balanced levels and the ASSR-predicted balanced levels was smaller than 10 dB in 50% and 56% of cases, for 500 Hz and 2000 Hz, respectively. For bimodal listeners, these percentages were 89% and 60%. Apical CI channels yielded significantly better results (median difference near 0 dB) than middle CI channels, which had a median difference of -7.25 dB.

A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.

To evaluate whether speech recognition in noise differs according to whether a wireless remote microphone is connected to just the cochlear implant (CI) or to both the CI and to the hearing aid (HA) in bimodal CI users. The second aim was to evaluate the additional benefit of the directional microphone mode compared with the omnidirectional microphone mode of the wireless microphone. This prospective study measured Speech Recognition Thresholds (SRT) in babble noise in a 'within-subjects repeated measures design' for different listening conditions. Eighteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal CI users. No difference in speech recognition in noise in the bimodal listening condition was found between the wireless microphone connected to the CI only and to both the CI and the HA. An improvement of 4.1 dB was found for switching from the omnidirectional microphone mode to the directional mode in the CI only condition. The use of a wireless microphone improved speech recognition in noise for bimodal CI users. The use of the directional microphone mode led to a substantial additional improvement of speech perception in noise for situations with one target signal.

Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Ninety-four unilateral CI patients with bimodal listening experience (CI plus HA in contralateral ear) completed a questionnaire that focused on attitudes toward hearing aid use postimplantation, patterns of usage, and perceived bimodal benefits in daily life. Eighty participants continued HA use and 14 discontinued HA use at the time of the questionnaire. Participant responses provided useful information for counseling patients both before and after implantation. The majority of continuing bimodal (CI plus HA) participants reported adapting to using both devices within 3 months and also reported that they heard better bimodally in quiet, noisy, and reverberant conditions. They also perceived benefits including improved sound quality, better music enjoyment, and sometimes a perceived sense of acoustic balance. Those who discontinued HA use found either that using the HA did not provide additional benefit over the CI alone or that using the HA degraded the signal from the CI. Because there was considerable overlap in the audiograms and in speech recognition performance in the unimplanted ear between the two groups, we recommend that unilateral CI recipients are counseled to continue to use the HA in the contralateral ear postimplantation in order to determine whether or not they receive functional or perceived benefit from using both devices together.

Does acoustic fundamental frequency information enhance cochlear implant performance?

OBJECTIVES: Low-frequency information via an acoustic aid has been shown to increase speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant (CI) listeners. It has been suggested that fundamental frequency (F0) provides this advantage. This study aimed to investigate the contribution of F0. METHODS: Seven cochlear implant users having residual hearing at 125, 250, and 500 Hz contralateral to the implant were recruited. Speech intelligibility in noise was measured using an adaptive procedure for three listening conditions: (1) CI alone, (2) CI plus filtered acoustic information contralaterally, and (3) CI plus acoustic F0 contralaterally. In condition 2, the sentence material was low-passed at 500 Hz and presented via an insert earphone into the contralateral ear. In condition 3, F0 was extracted using Praat and presented as a sine wave with the same F0 variation over time as the original sentence. RESULTS: Although benefit was observed when low-frequency information was added for the majority of participants, on average no statistically significant difference was found for the three listening conditions. DISCUSSION: These results are not consistent with current literature. It is proposed that glimpsing cues may be responsible for the advantage observed in previous studies; in this study, both target and masker were presented in the acoustic condition and this may explain the discrepancy. CONCLUSION: The benefit of additional acoustic information may be highly variable and individual to participants, but on average no statistically significant difference was seen.