No Benefit of Deriving Cochlear-Implant Maps From Binaural Temporal-Envelope Sensitivity for Speech Perception or Spatial Hearing Under Single-Sided Deafness.

OBJECTIVES: This study tested whether speech perception and spatial acuity improved in people with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant (SSD+CI) when the frequency allocation table (FAT) of the CI was adjusted to optimize frequency-dependent sensitivity to binaural disparities. DESIGN: Nine SSD+CI listeners with at least 6 months of CI listening experience participated. Individual experimental FATs were created to best match the frequency-to-place mapping across ears using either sensitivity to binaural temporal-envelope disparities or estimated insertion depth. Spatial localization ability was measured, along with speech perception in spatially collocated or separated noise, first with the clinical FATs and then with the experimental FATs acutely and at 2-month intervals for 6 months. Listeners then returned to the clinical FATs and were retested acutely and after 1 month to control for long-term learning effects. RESULTS: The experimental FAT varied between listeners, differing by an average of 0.15 octaves from the clinical FAT. No significant differences in performance were observed in any of the measures between the experimental FAT after 6 months and the clinical FAT one month later, and no clear relationship was found between the size of the frequency-allocation shift and perceptual changes. CONCLUSION: Adjusting the FAT to optimize sensitivity to interaural temporal-envelope disparities did not improve localization or speech perception. The clinical frequency-to-place alignment may already be sufficient, given the inherently poor spectral resolution of CIs. Alternatively, other factors, such as temporal misalignment between the two ears, may need to be addressed before any benefits of spectral alignment can be observed.

Sensitivity to binaural temporal-envelope beats with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant as a measure of tonotopic match (L).

For cochlear-implant users with near-normal contralateral hearing, a mismatch between the frequency-to-place mapping in the two ears could produce a suboptimal performance. This study assesses tonotopic matches via binaural interactions. Dynamic interaural time-difference sensitivity was measured using bandpass-filtered pulse trains at different rates in the acoustic and implanted ear, creating binaural envelope beats. Sensitivity to beats should peak when the same tonotopic region is stimulated in both ears. All nine participants detected dynamic interaural timing differences and demonstrated some frequency selectivity. This method provides a guide to frequency-to-place mapping without compensation for inherent latency differences between the acoustic and implanted ears.

Quality of Life Impact of Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: Assessing the Interrelationship of Objective and Subjective Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect on quality of life (QOL) of cochlear implantation (CI) for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) using the first psychometrically developed CI-specific QOL tool for English-speaking patients and to assess its relationship to objective perceptual measures. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center. PATIENTS: English-speaking adults with SSD or AHL. INTERVENTIONS: Unilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) score, CI-alone speech-in-quiet (SIQ) score (CNC and AzBio), binaural speech-in-noise (SIN) threshold, binaural azimuthal sound localization (SL) error. RESULTS: At the most recent postoperative evaluation (median, 9.3 months postimplantation), 25 of 28 subjects (89%) had a CIQOL improvement, with the improvement considered clinically beneficial (>3 points) for 18 of 28 subjects (64%). Group-mean CIQOL improvement was observed at the first postoperative visit and did not change significantly thereafter. Objective perceptual measures (SL, SIQ, SIN) continued to improve over 12 months after implantation. Linear mixed-model regression analyses showed a moderate positive correlation between SIN and SIQ improvements (r = 0.50 to 0.59, p < 0.0001) and a strong positive correlation between the improvement in the two SIQ measures (r = 0.89, p < 0.0001). No significant relationships were observed ( p > 0.05) among QOL or the objective perceptual measures. CONCLUSIONS: QOL improved for the majority of subjects implanted for SSD and AHL. Different time courses for improvement in QOL and audiologic tests, combined with the lack of significant relationships among them, suggest that QOL outcomes reflect different aspects of the CI experience than those captured by speech-understanding and localization measures. SIQ may substitute for SIN when clinical constraints exist.