Factors Predictive of Binaural Hearing Restoration by Cochlear Implant in Single-Sided Deafness.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implants (CIs) can restore binaural hearing in cases of single-sided deafness (SSD). However, studies with a high level of evidence in support of this phenomenon are lacking. The aim of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of CIs using several spatialized speech-in-noise tests and to identify potential predictors of successful surgery. METHODS: Ten cases underwent standard CI surgery (MEDEL-Flex24). The speech-in-noise test was used in three different spatial configurations. The noise was presented from the front (N0), toward the CI (NCI), and toward the ear (Near), while the speech was always from the front (S0). For each test, the speech-to-noise ratio at 50% intelligibility (SNR50) was evaluated. Seven different effects were assessed (summation, head shadow [HS], speech released of masking [SRM], and squelch for the CI and for the ear). RESULTS: A significant summation effect of 1.5 dB was observed. Contralateral PTA was positively correlated with S0N0-B and S0NCI-B (CIon and unplugged ear). S0N0-B results were positively correlated with S0N0-CIoff (p < 0.0001) and with S0Near-CIoff results (p = 0.004). A significant positive correlation was found between delay post-activation and HS gain for the CI (p = 0.005). Finally, the HS was negatively correlated with the squelch effect for the ear. CONCLUSION: CI benefits patients with SSD in noise and can improve the threshold for detecting low-level noise. Contralateral PTA could predict good postoperative results. Simple tests performed preoperatively can predict the likelihood of surgical success in reversing SSD.

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.

Functional connectivity changes in infants with varying degrees of unilateral hearing loss.

It has been proved that unilateral hearing loss (UHL) can cause functional connectivity alterations in adults. However, the mechanism of the human brain coping with the challenge of unilateral hearing deprivation at very early developmental phases remains poorly understood. Here, we performed a resting-state functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study on 3- to 10-month-old infants with varying degrees of unilateral hearing loss to investigate the effect of unilateral auditory deprivation in infants. Using network-based statistics, increased functional connectivity was observed in single-sided deafness (SSD) compared with normal hearing infants, and the right middle temporal gyrus was the most involved nodes. In addition, changes in cortical function in infants were related to the degree of hearing loss, with significantly increased functional connectivity in infants with severe to profound unilateral hearing loss compared with the ones with mild to moderate. Moreover, more significant cortical functional recombination changes were found in right-SSD than in left-SSD infants. For the first time, our study provides evidence for the effects of unilateral hearing deprivation on the early cortical development of the human brain, which would also act as a reference for intervention decisions in children with unilateral hearing loss in clinical settings.

Benefits of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss: Audiologic and patient-related outcome measures.

PURPOSE: To investigate the benefits of cochlear implantation in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective within-subjects repeated-measures. SETTING: Two tertiary cochlear implant centers. PATIENTS: Fourteen adults with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in the worse hearing ear and up to moderate SNHL in the better hearing ear. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation in the worse hearing ear. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) test, AzBio sentence test in noise, and lateralization testing were conducted preoperatively and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-activation. Patient-related outcomes were measured using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale and Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Tinnitus Handicap Inventory was administered to subjects with tinnitus. RESULTS: Mean length of hearing loss in the worse hearing ear was 3.5 years. The mean CNC change scores from baseline were 54.8, 55.9, and 58.9 percentage points at 3-, 6-, and 12-months (p < 0.001). AzBio sentence test in noise demonstrated improved scores in all spatial configurations, although statistically significant in S0N0 (speech front, noise front) only. Lateralization testing showed significant improvement of 22.9, 24.5, and 24.0 percentage points at 3-, 6-, and 12 months post-activation (p = 0.002). All patient-related outcome measures revealed significant improvement. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improved speech perception in noise, sound lateralization, quality of life, and reduction in tinnitus perception in adults with SSD/AHL who undergo cochlear implantation. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that cochlear implant should be offered to this population.

The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life and psychological status in single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss with tinnitus and influencing factors of implantation intention: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: The current study aims to explore the therapeutic effect of cochlear implants (CIs) on tinnitus in patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss (SSD/AHL) as well as the improvement of tinnitus-related quality of life and psychological status. In addition, we also explored whether the levels of quality of life and psychological status was related to the patient's implantation intention. METHODS: Seven patients decided to receive cochlear implantation. Before and after implantation, they completed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ) to assess tinnitus severity, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) to assess the quality of life, the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) to assess psychological status. The other 8 SSD patients refused cochlear implantation. Their scores of the above questionnaires were compared with those of patients received implantation. RESULTS: Six months after cochlear implantations, the tinnitus perception, loudness, and annoyance significantly decreased compared to that before implantation. In terms of quality of life and physiological status, no statistically significant changes were detected in SSQ, SF-36, and SCSQ measurements. The score of annoyance subcategory of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ of patients refused implantation were better than those of implanted patients before implantation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that CIs can significantly reduce tinnitus severity. Patients refused implantation had better status in the annoyance of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ scores than those received implantation.

Auditory capacity of the better-hearing ear in asymmetric hearing loss.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate the course of the hearing capacity of the better-hearing ear in single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) over time, in a multicenter study. METHODS: We included 2086 pure-tone audiograms from 323 patients with SSD and AHL from four hospitals and 156 private practice otorhinolaryngologists. We collected: age, gender, etiology, duration of deafness, treatment with CI, number and monosyllabic speech recognition, numerical rating scale (NRS) of tinnitus intensity, and the tinnitus questionnaire according to Goebel and Hiller. We compared the pure tone audiogram of the better-hearing ear in patients with SSD with age- and gender-controlled hearing thresholds from ISO 7029:2017. RESULTS: First, individuals with SSD showed a significantly higher hearing threshold from 0.125 to 8 kHz in the better-hearing ear compared to the ISO 7029:2017. The duration of deafness of the poorer-hearing ear showed no relationship with the hearing threshold of the better-hearing ear. The hearing threshold was significantly higher in typically bilaterally presenting etiologies (chronic otitis media, otosclerosis, and congenital hearing loss), except for Menière's disease. Second, subjects that developed AHL did so in 5.19 ± 5.91 years and showed significant reduction in monosyllabic word and number recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with SSD show significantly poorer hearing in the better-hearing ear than individuals with NH from the ISO 7029:2017. In clinical practice, we should, therefore, inform our SSD patients that their disease is accompanied by a reduced hearing capacity on the contralateral side, especially in certain etiologies.

Tinnitus reduction after active bone-conduction implantation in patients with single-sided deafness: a prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Single-sided deafness (SSD) presents significant challenges for patients, including compromised sound localization, reduced speech recognition, and often, tinnitus. These issues are typically addressed using interventions such as cochlear implantation (CI) and bone conduction implant (BCI). However, evidence regarding the efficacy of BCI in reducing tinnitus in SSD patients remains limited. This study explored the ability of a novel active transcutaneous BCI (Bonebridge BCI602) to alleviate tinnitus in SSD patients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort multicenter study. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospitals. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study of 30 SSD patients was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups: those with (n = 19) and without (n = 11) tinnitus. Audiometric assessments, subjective questionnaires including the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness (BBSS), and tinnitus evaluations with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and tinnitogram were conducted before and after BCI surgery. RESULTS: THI scores after surgery were significantly reduced in SSD patients with tinnitus. Subjective satisfaction improved in both the tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups; however, the former group exhibited a significantly greater improvement in the APHAB questionnaire score. According to tinnitograms, the loudness of tinnitus decreased, particularly in patients with ipsilateral tinnitus. Patients with residual hearing had greater reductions in their THI scores. However, three patients without residual hearing had a relative worsening of tinnitus after surgery. CONCLUSION: The Bonebridge BCI602 effectively reduced tinnitus in SSD patients, particularly in those with residual hearing. Subjective satisfaction improved in both the tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups. These findings demonstrate the therapeutic potential of BCI for managing SSD and associated tinnitus.

Cochlear implant cost analysis in adults: a European narrative review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide an updated European narrative review spanning the last decade, focusing on the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants (CIs) for adults with severe to profound post-lingual hearing loss. METHODS: This review encompasses both prospective and retrospective approaches, as well as cross-sectional and longitudinal trials conducted on CIs in adults. All studies related to European countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and Poland) were conducted in English and were published between 2012 and June 2023. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the analysis. The patients' ages ranged from 18 years to over 67 years, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 100 patients; two of these studies were focused on single-sided deafness in adults. The Markov model was identified as the most commonly utilized analysis method. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a general consensus on CI cost-effectiveness, despite substantial variability among countries in factors such as observation time horizons, cost-effectiveness thresholds, methods of cost collection, discount rates, CI eligibility criteria and country-specific health systems. Generally, CIs yield positive societal benefits for working-age individuals, potentially less for seniors. Early unilateral CI enhances cost-effectiveness, highlighting the importance of prompt candidate identification. A consistent undersupply of CIs relative to the percentage of potential recipients emerged across countries. Therefore, further investigation into subcategories such as single-sided deafness is warranted, along with country-specific cost analyses. Emphasizing the significance of detailed information on health systems and associated costs and benefits is crucial for facilitating comparisons across different settings.

Clinical performance, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of an active osseointegrated bone-conduction hearing implant system at 24-month follow-up.

PURPOSE: To investigate 2-year post-operative hearing performance, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of hearing-impaired adults treated with the Osia® 2 System, an active osseointegrated bone-conduction hearing implant that uses piezoelectric technology. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, within-subject clinical study conducted at three tertiary referral clinical centers located in Melbourne, Sydney and Hong Kong. Twenty adult recipients of the Osia 2 System were enrolled and followed up between 12 and 24 months post-implantation: 17 with mixed or conductive hearing loss and 3 with single-sided sensorineural deafness. Safety data, audiological thresholds, speech recognition thresholds in noise, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and evaluated. In addition, pre-and 6-month post-implantation data were collected retrospectively for this recipient cohort enrolled into the earlier study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04041700). RESULTS: Between 6- and 24-month follow-up, there was no statistically significant change in free-field hearing thresholds or speech reception thresholds in noise (p = > 0.05), indicating that aided improvements were maintained up to 24 months of follow-up. Furthermore, improvements in health-related quality of life and daily hearing ability, as well as clinical and subjective measures of hearing benefit remained stable over the 24-month period. No serious adverse events were reported during extended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These study results provide further evidence to support the longer term clinical safety, hearing performance, and patient-related benefits of the Osia 2 System in patients with either a conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, or single-sided sensorineural deafness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04754477. First posted: February 15, 2021.

An audibility model of the headband trial with a bone conduction device in single-sided deaf subjects.

OBJECTIVE: Modelling the head-shadow effect compensation and speech recognition outcomes, we aimed to study the benefits of a bone conduction device (BCD) during the headband trial for single-sided deafened (SSD) subjects. DESIGN: This study is based on a database of individual patient measurements, fitting parameters, and acoustic BCD properties retrospectively measured on a skull simulator or from existing literature. The sensation levels of the Bone-Conduction and Air-Conduction sound paths were compared, modelling three spatial conditions with speech in quiet. We calculated the phoneme score using the Speech Intelligibility Index for the three conditions in quiet and seven in noise. STUDY SAMPLE: Eighty-five SSD adults fitted with BCD during headband trial. RESULTS: According to our model, most subjects did not achieve a full head-shadow effect compensation with the signal at the BCD side and in front. The modelled speech recognition in the quiet conditions did not improve with the BCD on the headband. In noise, we found a slight improvement in some specific conditions and minimal worsening in others. CONCLUSIONS: Based on an audibility model, this study challenges the fundamentals of a BCD headband trial in SSD subjects. Patients should be counselled regarding the potential outcome and alternative approaches.

Event-Related Potentials of Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users: Using a Semantic Oddball Paradigm in Noise.

INTRODUCTION: In individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD), who are characterised by profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear, binaural input is no longer present. A cochlear implant (CI) can restore functional hearing in the profoundly deaf ear, with previous literature demonstrating improvements in speech-in-noise intelligibility with the CI. However, we currently have limited understanding of the neural processes involved (e.g., how the brain integrates the electrical signal produced by the CI with the acoustic signal produced by the normal hearing ear) and how modulation of these processes with a CI contributes to improved speech-in-noise intelligibility. Using a semantic oddball paradigm presented in the presence of background noise, this study aims to investigate how the provision of CI impacts speech-in-noise perception of SSD-CI users. METHOD: Task performance (reaction time, reaction time variability, target accuracy, subjective listening effort) and high density electroencephalography from twelve SSD-CI participants were recorded, while they completed a semantic acoustic oddball task. Reaction time was defined as the time taken for a participant to press the response button after stimulus onset. All participants completed the oddball task in three different free-field conditions with the speech and noise coming from different speakers. The three tasks were: (1) CI-On in background noise, (2) CI-Off in background noise, and (3) CI-On without background noise (Control). Task performance and electroencephalography data (N2N4 and P3b) were recorded for each condition. Speech in noise and sound localisation ability were also measured. RESULTS: Reaction time was significantly different between all tasks with CI-On (M [SE] = 809 [39.9] ms) having faster RTs than CI-Off (M [SE] = 845 [39.9] ms) and Control (M [SE] = 785 [39.9] ms) being the fastest condition. The Control condition exhibited significantly shorter N2N4 and P3b area latency compared to the other two conditions. However, despite these differences noticed in RTs and area latency, we observed similar results between all three conditions for N2N4 and P3b difference area. CONCLUSION: The inconsistency between the behavioural and neural results suggests that EEG may not be a reliable measure of cognitive effort. This rationale is further supported by different explanations used in past studies to explain N2N4 and P3b effects. Future studies should look to alternative measures of auditory processing (e.g., pupillometry) to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying auditory processes that facilitate speech-in-noise intelligibility.

Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices for Single-Sided Deafness: A New Preoperative Evaluation Protocol and Widening of Indications Proposal.

INTRODUCTION: Bone-anchored hearing devices (BAHD) are well-known good solution for single-sided deafness (SSD). Despite power extension of recently introduced BAHD with implanted active transducer, with indications up to 65 dB Hl of bone conduction (BC) threshold on the implanted side, their indications for SSD still remain better than 25 dB on the good ear, with regards to bone conduction thresholds. The aim of this study was to assess the possibility to enlarge BAHD indications for SSD by means of a newly proposed candidacy evaluation protocol, which includes a new software-aided method. METHODS: 20 SSD patients (mean age 56 years, 9 females, and 11 males) were divided into two groups: group A (10 patients, BC <25 dB Hl on the hearing side) and group B (10 patients, BC between 25 and 35 dB Hl). Recipients were submitted to bisyllabic words speech audiometry in silence and to authors' newly proposed IFastSRT50 test by means of software which shift noise intensity of a single word list on the basis of correct recipient recognition responses. A sound speaker for signal (bisyllabic words) and noise (babble) was disposed at 1 m from the deaf side of the patient. An earphone covering only the good ear of the recipient was used in order to perform its air conduction masking with white noise. A BAHD test device was disposed on the mastoid of the deaf side. Both signal and masking intensities were set to 55 dB SPL in order to mask airway conduction on the good ear without masking its bone way interaural conduction from the BAHD tester. RESULTS: With BAHD tester turned off, no recognition was detected. Speech audiometry with BAHD tester turned on revealed mean values of 92% for group A and 89% for group B, with a difference of 3.0% (χ2 = 0.285 and p = 0.5935). As for IFastSRT50 with BAHD tester turned on, mean signal-to-noise ratio value to obtain 50% of recognition was -6.89 for group A and -6, with a difference of 0.89 (t = 1,201 and p = 0.2453). CONCLUSION: BAHD are confirmed to be a good solution for SSD cases. The absence of statistically significant differences in our two tested groups suggests that newer implanted active transducer device indications should be extended up to 35 dB Hl on the hearing ear. The IFastSRT50 is a reliable and quick method to enhance preoperative candidacy evaluation.

Auditory Spatial Discrimination and Sound Localization in Single-Sided Deaf Participants Provided with a Cochlear Implant.

INTRODUCTION: Spatial hearing is most accurate using both ears, but accuracy decreases in persons with asymmetrical hearing between ears. In participants with deafness in one ear but normal hearing in the other ear (single-sided deafness [SSD]), this difference can be compensated by a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). It has been shown that a CI can restore sound localization performance, but it is still unclear to what extent auditory spatial discrimination can be improved. METHODS: The present study investigated auditory spatial discrimination using minimum audible angles (MAAs) in 18 CI-SSD participants. Results were compared to 120 age-matched normal-hearing (NH) listeners. Low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) noise bursts were presented from 4°, 30°, and 60° azimuth on the CI side and on the NH side. MAA thresholds were tested for correlation with localization performance in the same participants. RESULTS: There were eight good performers and ten poor performers. There were more poor performers for LF signals than for HF signals. Performance on the CI side was comparable to performance on the NH side. Most difficulties occurred at 4° and at 30°. Eight of the good performers in the localization task were also good performers in the MAA task. Only the localization ability at 4° on the CI side was positively correlated with the MAA at that location. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a CI can restore localization ability but not necessarily auditory spatial discrimination at the same time. The ability to discriminate between adjacent locations may be trainable during rehabilitation to enhance important auditory skills.

Clinical performance, audiological outcomes, and quality of life of the Cochlear Osia ® system.

OBJECTIVE: The Cochlear Osseointegrated Steady-State Implant Bone Anchored Hearing Device (Osia) is a surgically implanted titanium apparatus that utilizes a piezoelectric actuator under the skin to address conductive and mixed hearing loss as well as single-sided deafness. The purpose of this study is to examine the clinical, audiologic, and quality-of-life outcomes in patients who underwent Osia implantation. METHODS: This is a retrospective study analyzing 30 adult patients (age 27-86) with conductive healing loss (CHL), mixed hearing loss (MHL), or single-sided deafness (SSD) who were implanted with the Osia device from January 2020 to April 2023 at a single institution by the senior author. Preoperative speech score testing (CNC, AzBio in quiet, AzBio in noise) were performed in all subjects while unaided, wearing conventional air conduction hearing aids, and wearing a softband BAHA. These preoperative speech scores were then compared to post-implantation speech scores using paired t-test analysis to assess for degree of speech improvement. In order to analyze quality of life after Osia implantation, each patient filled out the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) survey. The GBI is a series of 18 questions answered using a five-point Likert scale that addresses the changes in general health status, physical health status, psychosocial health status, and social support after a medical intervention. RESULTS: CHL, MHL, and SSD patients had significant improvement in hearing and speech recognition scores after Osia implantation compared to preoperative unaided hearing: CNC (14 % vs 80 %, p < 0.0001), AzBio in Quiet (26 % vs 94 %, p < 0.0001), and AzBio in Noise (36 % vs 87 %, p = 0.0001). Preoperative speech scores using the softband BAHA were accurate predictors of post-implantation speech scores and can serve to determine surgical candidacy for the Osia. Post-implantation Glasgow Benefit Inventory patient surveys demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life with patients scoring an average increase of +54.1 points in heath satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Adult patients with CHL, MHL, and SSD can receive significant improvement in speech recognition scores after implantation with the Osia device. This translates to improved quality of life, which was confirmed on the post-implantation Glasgow Benefit Inventory patient surveys.

Matching the pitch perception of the cochlear implanted ear with the contralateral ear in patients with single-sided deafness: a novel approach.

PURPOSE: Single-sided deaf patients following cochlear implantation often compare the sound quality of their implanted ear with normal hearing. The interaural differences can result in dissatisfaction with speech comprehension and reduced time of usage of the speech processor; hence, prolonging auditory adaptation time. The proposed calibration method presented in this study demonstrates how the frequency distribution of the cochlear implant can be set to adequately approximate the pitch perception of the contralateral normal hearing ear towards improving speech intelligibility in a noisy environment. METHODS: In 12 postlingual single-sided deaf patients, subjective interaural pitch-matching was carried out to determine new central frequencies for the reallocation of the frequency bands of their speech processor (CP910, CP950 or CP1000, Cochlear, Australia). The patients were asked to compare the pitch of the tones presented to their normal hearing ear to the pitch of individual channels of their cochlear implant (CI522 or CI622, Cochlear, Australia). A third-degree polynomial curve was fit to the acquired matching frequencies to create the new frequency allocation table. Audiological measurements (free-field aided thresholds, speech reception thresholds, and monosyllabic word recognition score) in noise, together with a Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12) questionnaire (short version of the original SSQ) results were evaluated prior to the pitch-matching procedure, and again, 2 weeks later. RESULTS: The free-field aided thresholds of the patients showed no greater shift than ± 5 dB following the procedure; however, their monosyllabic word recognition score in noise improved significantly (mean - 9.58%, SD 4.98%, matched pairs t test comparison: p < 0.001). The results of the SSQ12 questionnaire also showed significant improvement in speech intelligibility, sound localization, and sound quality (mean 0.96 points, SD 0.45 points, matched pairs t test comparison: p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Matching the pitch perception of the implanted cochlea with the sensation of the normal hearing contralateral ear, resulted in significant changes in the quality of hearing in patients with single-sided deafness. It is plausible the procedure can usher positive results in bimodal patients or following sequential bilateral cochlear implantation.

Impact of processing-latency induced interaural delay and level discrepancy on sensitivity to interaural level differences in cochlear implant users.

PURPOSE: This study investigated whether an interaural delay, e.g. caused by the processing latency of a hearing device, can affect sensitivity to interaural level differences (ILDs) in normal hearing subjects or cochlear implant (CI) users with contralateral normal hearing (SSD-CI). METHODS: Sensitivity to ILD was measured in 10 SSD-CI subjects and in 24 normal hearing subjects. The stimulus was a noise burst presented via headphones and via a direct cable connection (CI). ILD sensitivity was measured for different interaural delays in the range induced by hearing devices. ILD sensitivity was correlated with results obtained in a sound localization task using seven loudspeakers in the frontal horizontal plane. RESULTS: In the normal hearing subjects the sensitivity to interaural level differences deteriorated significantly with increasing interaural delays. In the CI group, no significant effect of interaural delays on ILD sensitivity was found. The NH subjects were significantly more sensitive to ILDs. The mean localization error in the CI group was 10.8° higher than in the normal hearing group. No correlation between sound localization ability and ILD sensitivity was found. CONCLUSION: Interaural delays influence the perception of ILDs. For normal hearing subjects a significant decrement in sensitivity to ILD was measured. The effect could not be confirmed in the tested SSD-CI group, probably due to a small subject group with large variations. The temporal matching of the two sides may be beneficial for ILD processing and thus sound localization for CI patients. However, further studies are needed for verification.

Can an individual with low frequency hearing in the candidate ear benefit from a cochlear implant even if they have normal hearing in the other ear?

PURPOSE: To determine hearing preservation and subjective benefit after cochlear implant (CI) surgery in patients with low frequency hearing in the ear to be implanted (i.e., they have partial deafness, PD) and close to normal hearing in the other. METHODS: There were two study groups. The test group was made up of 12 adult patients (mean age 43.4 years; SD 13.6) with normal hearing or mild hearing loss in one ear, and with PD in the ear to be implanted. The reference group consisted of 12 adult patients (mean age 44.5 years; SD 14.1) who had PD in both ears and who underwent unilateral implantation in their worse ear. Hearing preservation was assessed 1 and 14 months after CI surgery using the Skarzynski Hearing Preservation Classification System. The APHAB questionnaire was used to evaluate the benefit from the CI. RESULTS: The differences in HP% between the groups were not significant: mean hearing preservation (HP%) in the test group was 82% one month after CI surgery and 75% some 14 months after implantation; corresponding results in the reference group were 71% and 69%. However, on the APHAB background noise subscale, the benefit in the test group was significantly larger than in the reference group. CONCLUSION: To a large extent it was possible to preserve low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear. This means that individuals with low frequency hearing in the implanted ear (partial deafness) and with normal hearing in the other generally received more benefits from cochlear implantation than did patients with partial deafness in both ears. We conclude that residual low frequency hearing in the ear to be implanted should not be considered a contraindication for a CI in a patient with single-sided deafness.

Hearing rehabilitation for unilateral deafness using a cochlear implant: the influence of the subjective duration of deafness on speech intelligibility.

BACKGROUND: For patients with single sided deafness (SSD) or severe asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASHL), cochlear implantation remains the only solution to restore bilateral hearing capacity. Prognostically, the duration of hearing loss in terms of audiological outcome is not yet clear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to retrospectively investigate the influence of subjective deafness duration on postoperative speech perception after cochlear implantation for SSD as well as its impact on quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study included a total of 36 adults aged 50.2 ± 15.5 years who underwent CI for SSD/ASHL at our clinic between 2010 and 2015. Patients were audiometrically assessed at 3 and 12-36 months postoperatively. Test results were correlated with self-reported duration of deafness. Quality of life was assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean duration of deafness was 193.9 ± 185.7 months. The side-separated hearing threshold showed an averaged target range between 30 and 40 dB HL. Freiburg monosyllable test increased from 0% pre-operatively to 20% after 3 months (p = 0.001) and to 50% after 12-36 months (p = 0.002). There was a significant correlation between audiometric outcome and subjective deafness duration at 12-36 months postoperatively (r = - 0.564; p = 0.02) with a cutoff for open-set monosyllable recognition at a duration of deafness of greater than 408 months. Quality of life was significantly improved by CI. CONCLUSIONS: CI implantation in unilaterally deafened patients provides objective and subjective benefits. Duration of deafness is unlikely to be an independent negative predictive factor and thus should not generally be considered as contraindication.

Cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness: a single-center experience of 138 cases.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the outcomes in patients who underwent cochlear implant (CI) for single-sided deafness (SSD). METHODS: All patients affected by SSD who underwent CI at Gruppo Otologico, Piacenza, from October 2012 to May 2022 with at least 6 months of follow-up were selected in the study group. The analysis included subjective and objective measures performed pre-operative and up to 24 months after surgery. Hearing threshold on both sides was evaluated with a weighted four-frequency average (PTA [0.5 kHz + 1 kHz + 2 kHz + 4 kHz]/4) on pure tone audiometry and speech audiometry (Speech Discrimination Score, SDS). The Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ Questionnaire) for binaural hearing benefits and sound localization, the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory Questionnaire (THI) and Dizziness Handicap Inventory Questionnaire (DHI) were used for subjective assessment. RESULTS: Data from 138 patients, 69 males and 69 females, (mean age 49 years, range 17-77 years) underwent CI for SSD were examined. Single-sided hearing deprivation average before undergoing CI surgery was 2.5 years (range 3 months-35 years). There was a significant reduction of THI and DHI scores compared to pre-operative scores alongside a referred improvement in social, physical, and emotional well-being through the SSQ questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this paper descried the largest cohort of SSD who underwent CI in a single institution. According to our findings CI in patients affected by SSD represents a valuable tool for an overall improvement of tinnitus and dizziness but also quality of life, after at least 6 months of follow-up. Further studies are desirable to improve rehabilitation pathways and possibly set new standards of care of this condition.

Sound localisation of low- and high-frequency sounds in cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness.

OBJECTIVE: Localisation of low- and high-frequency sounds in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users was investigated using noise stimuli designed to mitigate monaural localisation cues. DESIGN: Within subject design. Sound source localisation was tested in the horizontal plane using an array of seven loudspeakers along the azimuthal angle span from -90° to +90°. Stimuli were broadband noise and high- and low-frequency noise. STUDY SAMPLE: Twelve adult subjects with single-sided deafness participated in the study. All had normal hearing in the healthy ear and were supplied with a cochlear implant (CI) in their deaf ear. RESULTS: With broadband noise, the mean angular localisation error was 39° in aided condition as compared to a median angular error of 83.6° when the speech processor was not worn. For high-frequency noise, the median angular error was 30° and for low-frequency noise, it was 46° in the CI-aided condition. CONCLUSIONS: Single-sided deaf CI users show the best sound localisation for high-frequency sounds. This supports the view that interaural level differences are dominant for sound localisation in these listeners. Nonetheless, a limited ability to localise low-frequency sounds was observed, which may be based on the supportive perception of interaural time differences.