Evaluation of a New Bone Conduction Device for the Rehabilitation of Single-Sided Deafness: Effects on Speech Understanding in Noise.

INTRODUCTION: A new external, adhesive, no-pressure bone-conduction device provides rehabilitation for conductive hearing loss and single-sided deafness (SSD). The purpose of the study is to evaluate speech recognition performance with the bone-conduction contralateral routing of signal (aBC-CROS) and compare it to an air-conduction CROS (AC-CROS) used by subjects for at least 1 year. METHODS: Ten SSD patients underwent speech understanding in noise tests with their AC-CROS, the aBC-CROS, and unaided. The 1st test session took place the day the aBC-CROS was fitted, with the second session after 2 weeks of aBC-CROS use. Two configurations were used: speech presented on the deaf side and noise on the normal side and the reverse. RESULTS: The speech recognition threshold (SRT) improved with both devices when speech was presented to the deaf side. Nine patients showed significant improvement (p < 0.016) with the AC-CROS (mean: 2.8 dB) and the aBC-CROS (mean: 3.0 dB). Mean difference of improvement was significant between unaided and aBC-CROS (p = 0.001) or AC-CROS (p = 0.006). The SRT deteriorated by an average of 2.3 dB with the AC-CROS with noise presented on the deaf side, with significance found for six patients (p < 0.016). The aBC-CROS did not affect performance in this configuration (mean improvement: 0.3 dB) and only one patient had a significant SRT degradation (p < 0.016). Mean difference of improvement was significant between the AC-CROS and aBC-CROS (p = 0.021) or unaided (p = 0.05). DISCUSSION: The aBC-CROS is a good alternative to the existing CROS devices for SSD rehabilitation, as it offers the same benefit with none of the drawbacks when noise is on the patient's deaf side.

Intra-Cochlear Current Spread Correlates with Speech Perception in Experienced Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Broader intra-cochlear current spread (ICCS) implies higher cochlear implant (CI) channel interactions. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between ICCS and speech intelligibility in experienced CI users. Using voltage matrices collected for impedance measurements, an individual exponential spread coefficient (ESC) was computed. Speech audiometry was performed to determine the intelligibility at 40 dB Sound Pressure Level (SPL) and the 50% speech reception threshold: I40 and SRT50 respectively. Correlations between ESC and either I40 or SRT50 were assessed. A total of 36 adults (mean age: 50 years) with more than 11 months (mean: 34 months) of CI experience were included. In the 21 subjects for whom all electrodes were active, ESC was moderately correlated with both I40 (r = -0.557, p = 0.009) and SRT50 (r = 0.569, p = 0.007). The results indicate that speech perception performance is negatively affected by the ICCS. Estimates of current spread at the closest vicinity of CI electrodes and prior to any activation of auditory neurons are indispensable to better characterize the relationship between CI stimulation and auditory perception in cochlear implantees.

Speech Perception Changes in the Acoustically Aided, Nonimplanted Ear after Cochlear Implantation: A Multicenter Study.

In recent years there has been an increasing percentage of cochlear implant (CI) users who have usable residual hearing in the contralateral, nonimplanted ear, typically aided by acoustic amplification. This raises the issue of the extent to which the signal presented through the cochlear implant may influence how listeners process information in the acoustically stimulated ear. This multicenter retrospective study examined pre- to postoperative changes in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear, the implanted ear, and both together. Results in the latter two conditions showed the expected increases, but speech perception in the nonimplanted ear showed a modest yet meaningful decrease that could not be completely explained by changes in unaided thresholds, hearing aid malfunction, or several other demographic variables. Decreases in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear were more likely in individuals who had better levels of speech perception in the implanted ear, and in those who had better speech perception in the implanted than in the nonimplanted ear. This raises the possibility that, in some cases, bimodal listeners may rely on the higher quality signal provided by the implant and may disregard or even neglect the input provided by the nonimplanted ear.

Using Electrically-evoked Compound Action Potentials to Estimate Perceptive Levels in Experienced Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

HYPOTHESIS: The cochlear implant (CI) fitting level prediction accuracy of electrically-evoked compound action potential (ECAP) should be enhanced by the addition of demographic data in models. INTRODUCTION: No accurate automated fitting of CI based on ECAP has yet been proposed. METHODS: We recorded ECAP in 45 adults who had been using MED-EL CIs for more than 11 months and collected the most comfortable loudness level (MCL) used for CI fitting (prog-MCL), perception thresholds (meas-THR), and MCL (meas-MCL) measured with the stimulation used for ECAP recording. Linear mixed models taking into account cochlear site factors were computed to explain prog-MCL, meas-MCL, and meas-THR. RESULTS: Cochlear region and ECAP threshold were predictors of the three levels. In addition, significant predictors were the ECAP amplitude for the prog-MCL and the duration of deafness for the prog-MCL and the meas-THR. Estimations were more accurate for the meas-THR, then the meas-MCL, and finally the prog-MCL. CONCLUSION: These results show that 1) ECAP thresholds are more closely related to perception threshold than to comfort level, 2) predictions are more accurate when the inter-subject and cochlear regions variations are considered, and 3) differences between the stimulations used for ECAP recording and for CI fitting make it difficult to accurately predict the prog-MCL from the ECAP recording. Predicted prog-MCL could be used as bases for fitting but should be used with care to avoid any uncomfortable or painful stimulation.

A model-based analysis of the "combined-stimulation advantage".

Improvements in speech-recognition performance resulting from the addition of low-frequency information to electric (or vocoded) signals have attracted considerable interest in recent years. An important question is whether these improvements reflect a form of constructive perceptual interaction-whereby acoustic cues enhance the perception of electric or vocoded signals-or whether they can be explained without assuming any interaction. To address this question, speech-recognition performance was measured in 24 normal-hearing listeners using lowpass-filtered, vocoded, and "combined" (lowpass + vocoded) words presented either in quiet or in a realistic background (cafeteria noise), for different signal-to-noise ratios, different lowpass-filter cutoff frequencies, and different numbers of vocoder bands. The results of these measures were then compared to the predictions of three models of cue combination, including a "probability-summation" model and two Gaussian signal detection theory (SDT) models-one (the "independent-noises" model) involving pre-combination noises, and the other (the "late-noise" model) involving post-combination noise. Consistent with previous findings, speech-recognition performance with combined stimulation was significantly higher than performance with vocoded or lowpass stimuli alone, and it was also higher than predicted by the probability-summation model. The two Gaussian-SDT models could account quantitatively for the data. Moreover, a Bayesian model-comparison procedure demonstrated that, given the data, these two models were far more likely than the probability-summation model. Since these models do not involve any constructive-interaction mechanism, this demonstrates that constructive interactions are not needed to explain the combined-stimulation benefits measured in this study. It will be important for future studies to investigate whether this conclusion generalizes to other test conditions, including real EAS, and to further test the assumptions of these different models of the combined-stimulation advantage.

Relationship between age of hearing-loss onset, hearing-loss duration, and speech recognition in individuals with severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss.

The factors responsible for interindividual differences in speech-understanding ability among hearing-impaired listeners are not well understood. Although audibility has been found to account for some of this variability, other factors may play a role. This study sought to examine whether part of the large interindividual variability of speech-recognition performance in individuals with severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss could be accounted for by differences in hearing-loss onset type (early, progressive, or sudden), age at hearing-loss onset, or hearing-loss duration. Other potential factors including age, hearing thresholds, speech-presentation levels, and speech audibility were controlled. Percent-correct (PC) scores for syllables in dissyllabic words, which were either unprocessed or lowpass filtered at cutoff frequencies ranging from 250 to 2,000 Hz, were measured in 20 subjects (40 ears) with severe-to-profound hearing losses above 1 kHz. For comparison purposes, 20 normal-hearing subjects (20 ears) were also tested using the same filtering conditions and a range of speech levels (10-80 dB SPL). Significantly higher asymptotic PCs were observed in the early (<=4 years) hearing-loss onset group than in both the progressive- and sudden-onset groups, even though the three groups did not differ significantly with respect to age, hearing thresholds, or speech audibility. In addition, significant negative correlations between PC and hearing-loss onset age, and positive correlations between PC and hearing-loss duration were observed. These variables accounted for a greater proportion of the variance in speech-intelligibility scores than, and were not significantly correlated with, speech audibility, as quantified using a variant of the articulation index. Although the lack of statistical independence between hearing-loss onset type, hearing-loss onset age, hearing-loss duration, and age complicate and limit the interpretation of the results, these findings indicate that other variables than audibility can influence speech intelligibility in listeners with severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss.