[Interaural stimulation timing mismatch in listeners provided with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid : A review focusing on quantification and compensation]. / Unterschiedliche Stimulationszeitpunkte bei bimodaler Versorgung mit Hörgerät und Cochleaimplantat : Übersichtsartikel zu Quantifizierung und Kompensation.

Bimodal provision of patients with asymmetric hearing loss with a hearing aid ipsilaterally and a cochlear implant (CI) contralaterally is probably the most complicated type of CI provision due to a variety of inherent variables. This review article presents all the systematic interaural mismatches between electric and acoustic stimulation that can occur in bimodal listeners. One of these mismatches is the interaural latency offset, i.e., the time difference of activation of the auditory nerve by acoustic and electric stimulation. Methods for quantifying this offset are presented by registering electrically and acoustically evoked potentials and measuring processing delays in the devices. Technical compensation of the interaural latency offset and its positive effect on sound localization ability in bimodal listeners is also described. Finally, most recent findings are discussed which may explain why compensation of the interaural latency offset does not improve speech understanding in noise in bimodal listeners.

Clinical Feasibility and Familiarization Effects of Device Delay Mismatch Compensation in Bimodal CI/HA Users.

Subjects utilizing a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) on the contralateral ear suffer from mismatches in stimulation timing due to different processing latencies of both devices. This device delay mismatch leads to a temporal mismatch in auditory nerve stimulation. Compensating for this auditory nerve stimulation mismatch by compensating for the device delay mismatch can significantly improve sound source localization accuracy. One CI manufacturer has already implemented the possibility of mismatch compensation in its current fitting software. This study investigated if this fitting parameter can be readily used in clinical settings and determined the effects of familiarization to a compensated device delay mismatch over a period of 3-4 weeks. Sound localization accuracy and speech understanding in noise were measured in eleven bimodal CI/HA users, with and without a compensation of the device delay mismatch. The results showed that sound localization bias improved to 0°, implying that the localization bias towards the CI was eliminated when the device delay mismatch was compensated. The RMS error was improved by 18% with this improvement not reaching statistical significance. The effects were acute and did not further improve after 3 weeks of familiarization. For the speech tests, spatial release from masking did not improve with a compensated mismatch. The results show that this fitting parameter can be readily used by clinicians to improve sound localization ability in bimodal users. Further, our findings suggest that subjects with poor sound localization ability benefit the most from the device delay mismatch compensation.

Effect of a processing delay between direct and delayed sound in simulated open fit hearing aids on speech intelligibility in noise.

Introduction: Subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss today often receive hearing aids (HA) with open-fitting (OF). In OF, direct sound reaches the eardrums with minimal damping. Due to the required processing delay in digital HA, the amplified HA sound follows some milliseconds later. This process occurs in both ears symmetrically in bilateral HA provision and is likely to have no or minor detrimental effect on binaural hearing. However, the delayed and amplified sound are only present in one ear in cases of unilateral hearing loss provided with one HA. This processing alters interaural timing differences in the resulting ear signals. Methods: In the present study, an experiment with normal-hearing subjects to investigate speech intelligibility in noise with direct and delayed sound was performed to mimic unilateral and bilateral HA provision with OF. Results: The outcomes reveal that these delays affect speech reception thresholds (SRT) in the unilateral OF simulation when presenting speech and noise from different spatial directions. A significant decrease in the median SRT from -18.1 to -14.7 dB SNR is observed when typical HA processing delays are applied. On the other hand, SRT was independent of the delay between direct and delayed sound in the bilateral OF simulation. Discussion: The significant effect emphasizes the development of rapid processing algorithms for unilateral HA provision.

Measuring and Modeling Cue Dependent Spatial Release from Masking in the Presence of Typical Delays in the Treatment of Hearing Loss.

In asymmetric treatment of hearing loss, processing latencies of the modalities typically differ. This often alters the reference interaural time difference (ITD) (i.e., the ITD at 0° azimuth) by several milliseconds. Such changes in reference ITD have shown to influence sound source localization in bimodal listeners provided with a hearing aid (HA) in one and a cochlear implant (CI) in the contralateral ear. In this study, the effect of changes in reference ITD on speech understanding, especially spatial release from masking (SRM) in normal-hearing subjects was explored. Speech reception thresholds (SRT) were measured in ten normal-hearing subjects for reference ITDs of 0, 1.75, 3.5, 5.25 and 7 ms with spatially collocated (S0N0) and spatially separated (S0N90) sound sources. Further, the cues for separation of target and masker were manipulated to measure the effect of a reference ITD on unmasking by A) ITDs and interaural level differences (ILDs), B) ITDs only and C) ILDs only. A blind equalization-cancellation (EC) model was applied to simulate all measured conditions. SRM decreased significantly in conditions A) and B) when the reference ITD was increased: In condition A) from 8.8 dB SNR on average at 0 ms reference ITD to 4.6 dB at 7 ms, in condition B) from 5.5 dB to 1.1 dB. In condition C) no significant effect was found. These results were accurately predicted by the applied EC-model. The outcomes show that interaural processing latency differences should be considered in asymmetric treatment of hearing loss.

Sound Localization Bias and Error in Bimodal Listeners Improve Instantaneously When the Device Delay Mismatch Is Reduced.

Users of a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear, who are provided with a hearing aid (HA) in the contralateral ear, so-called bimodal listeners, are typically affected by a constant and relatively large interaural time delay offset due to differences in signal processing and differences in stimulation. For HA stimulation, the cochlear travelling wave delay is added to the processing delay, while for CI stimulation, the auditory nerve fibers are stimulated directly. In case of MED-EL CI systems in combination with different HA types, the CI stimulation precedes the acoustic HA stimulation by 3 to 10 ms. A self-designed, battery-powered, portable, and programmable delay line was applied to the CI to reduce the device delay mismatch in nine bimodal listeners. We used an A-B-B-A test design and determined if sound source localization improves when the device delay mismatch is reduced by delaying the CI stimulation by the HA processing delay (τHA). Results revealed that every subject in our group of nine bimodal listeners benefited from the approach. The root-mean-square error of sound localization improved significantly from 52.6° to 37.9°. The signed bias also improved significantly from 25.2° to 10.5°, with positive values indicating a bias toward the CI. Furthermore, two other delay values (τHA -1 ms and τHA +1 ms) were applied, and with the latter value, the signed bias was further reduced in some test subjects. We conclude that sound source localization accuracy in bimodal listeners improves instantaneously and sustainably when the device delay mismatch is reduced.

Reducing the Device Delay Mismatch Can Improve Sound Localization in Bimodal Cochlear Implant/Hearing-Aid Users.

In users of a cochlear implant (CI) together with a contralateral hearing aid (HA), so-called bimodal listeners, differences in processing latencies between digital HA and CI up to 9 ms constantly superimpose interaural time differences. In the present study, the effect of this device delay mismatch on sound localization accuracy was investigated. For this purpose, localization accuracy in the frontal horizontal plane was measured with the original and minimized device delay mismatch. The reduction was achieved by delaying the CI stimulation according to the delay of the individually worn HA. For this, a portable, programmable, battery-powered delay line based on a ring buffer running on a microcontroller was designed and assembled. After an acclimatization period to the delayed CI stimulation of 1 hr, the nine bimodal study participants showed a highly significant improvement in localization accuracy of 11.6% compared with the everyday situation without the delay line ( p < .01). Concluding, delaying CI stimulation to minimize the device delay mismatch seems to be a promising method to increase sound localization accuracy in bimodal listeners.

Perception of Interaural Phase Differences With Envelope and Fine Structure Coding Strategies in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.

The ability to detect a target signal masked by noise is improved in normal-hearing listeners when interaural phase differences (IPDs) between the ear signals exist either in the masker or in the signal. To improve binaural hearing in bilaterally implanted cochlear implant (BiCI) users, a coding strategy providing the best possible access to IPD is highly desirable. In this study, we compared two coding strategies in BiCI users provided with CI systems from MED-EL (Innsbruck, Austria). The CI systems were bilaterally programmed either with the fine structure processing strategy FS4 or with the constant rate strategy high definition continuous interleaved sampling (HDCIS). Familiarization periods between 6 and 12 weeks were considered. The effect of IPD was measured in two types of experiments: (a) IPD detection thresholds with tonal signals addressing mainly one apical interaural electrode pair and (b) with speech in noise in terms of binaural speech intelligibility level differences (BILD) addressing multiple electrodes bilaterally. The results in (a) showed improved IPD detection thresholds with FS4 compared with HDCIS in four out of the seven BiCI users. In contrast, 12 BiCI users in (b) showed similar BILD with FS4 (0.6 ± 1.9 dB) and HDCIS (0.5 ± 2.0 dB). However, no correlation between results in (a) and (b) both obtained with FS4 was found. In conclusion, the degree of IPD sensitivity determined on an apical interaural electrode pair was not an indicator for BILD based on bilateral multielectrode stimulation.

The effect of fluctuating maskers on speech understanding of high-performing cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated whether the poorer baseline performance of cochlear implant (CI) users or the technical and/or physiological properties of CI stimulation are responsible for the absence of masking release. DESIGN: This study measured speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in continuous and modulated noise as a function of signal to noise ratio (SNR). STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 24 subjects participated: 12 normal-hearing (NH) listeners and 12 subjects provided with recent MED-EL CI systems. RESULTS: The mean SRT of CI users in continuous noise was -3.0 ± 1.5 dB SNR (mean ± SEM), while the normal-hearing group reached -5.9 ± 0.8 dB SNR. In modulated noise, the difference across groups increased considerably. For CI users, the mean SRT worsened to -1.4 ± 2.3 dB SNR, while it improved for normal-hearing listeners to -18.9 ± 3.8 dB SNR. CONCLUSIONS: The detrimental effect of fluctuating maskers on SRTs in CI users shown by prior studies was confirmed by the current study. Concluding, the absence of masking release is mainly caused by the technical and/or physiological properties of CI stimulation, not just the poorer baseline performance of many CI users compared to normal-hearing subjects. Speech understanding in modulated noise was more robust in CI users who had a relatively large electrical dynamic range.

Towards a Unified Testing Framework for Single-Sided Deafness Studies: A Consensus Paper.

BACKGROUND: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL. METHODS: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada. RESULTS: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable. CONCLUSION: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Comparison between ABR with click and narrow band chirp stimuli in children.

OBJECTIVE: Click and chirp-evoked auditory brainstem responses (ABR) are applied for the estimation of hearing thresholds in children. The present study analyzes ABR thresholds across a large sample of children's ears obtained with both methods. The aim was to demonstrate the correlation between both methods using narrow band chirp and click stimuli. METHODS: Click and chirp evoked ABRs were measured in 253 children aged from 0 to 18 years to determine their individual auditory threshold. The delay-compensated stimuli were narrow band CE chirps with either 2000 Hz or 4000 Hz center frequencies. Measurements were performed consecutively during natural sleep, and under sedation or general anesthesia. Threshold estimation was performed for each measurement by two experienced audiologists. RESULTS: Pearson-correlation analysis revealed highly significant correlations (r=0.94) between click and chirp derived thresholds for both 2 kHz and 4 kHz chirps. No considerable differences were observed either between different age ranges or gender. Comparing the thresholds estimated using ABR with click stimuli and chirp stimuli, only 0.8-2% for the 2000 Hz NB-chirp and 0.4-1.2% of the 4000 Hz NB-chirp measurements differed more than 15 dB for different degrees of hearing loss or normal hearing. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that either NB-chirp or click ABR is sufficient for threshold estimation. This holds for the chirp frequencies of 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz. The use of either click- or chirp-evoked ABR allows a reduction of recording time in young infants. Nevertheless, to cross-check the results of one of the methods, we recommend measurements with the other method as well.

Comodulation masking release induced by controlled electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers.

Normal-hearing listeners can perceptually segregate concurrent sound sources, but listeners with significant hearing loss or who wear a cochlear implant (CI) lag behind in this ability. Perceptual grouping mechanisms are essential to segregate concurrent sound sources and affect comodulation masking release (CMR). Thus, CMR measurements in CI users could shed light on segregation cues needed for forming and grouping of auditory objects. CMR illustrates the fact that detection of a target sound embedded in a fluctuating masker is improved by the addition of masker energy remote from the target frequency, provided the envelope fluctuations across masker components are coherent. We modified such a CMR experiment to electrically-induced hearing using direct stimulation and measured the effect in 21 CI users. Cluster analysis of our data revealed two groups: one showed no or only small CMR of 0.1 dB ± 2.7 (N = 14) and a second group achieved a CMR of 10.7 dB ± 3.2 (N = 7), a value that is close to the enhancement observed in a comparable acoustic experiment in normal-hearing listeners (12.9 dB ± 2.6, N = 6). Interestingly, we observed that CMR in CI users may relate to hearing etiology and duration of hearing loss pre-implantation. Our study demonstrates for the first time that a substantial minority of cochlear-implant listeners (about a third) can show significant CMR. This outcome motivates the development of physiologically inspired multi-band gain control and/or different coding strategies for these groups in order to better preserve coherent modulation and thus to take advantage of the individual remaining capabilities to analyze spectro-temporal patterns.