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.

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.

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.

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.