The purpose of this study was to examine the availability of binaural cues for adult, bilateral cochlear implant (CI) patients, bimodal patients and hearing preservation patients using a multiple-baseline, observational study design. Speech recognition was assessed using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) test as well as the AzBio sentences [Spahr AJ, et al: Ear Hear 2012;33:112-117] presented in a multi-talker babble at a +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Test conditions included speech at 0° with noise presented at 0° (S₀N₀), 90° (S₀N90) and 270° (S₀N270). Estimates of summation, head shadow (HS), squelch and spatial release from masking (SRM) were calculated. Though nonwwe of the subject groups consistently showed access to binaural cues, the hearing preservation patients exhibited a significant correlation between summation and squelch whereas the bilateral and bimodal participants did not. That is to say, the two effects associated with binaural hearing - summation and squelch - were positively correlated only for the listeners with bilateral acoustic hearing. This finding provides evidence for the supposition that implant recipients with bilateral acoustic hearing have access to binaural cues, which should, in theory, provide greater benefit in noisy listening environments. It is likely, however, that the chosen test environment negatively affected the outcomes. Specifically, the spatially separated noise conditions directed noise toward the microphone (mic) port of the behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid and implant processor. Thus, it is possible that in more realistic listening environments for which the diffuse noise is not directed toward the processor/hearing aid mic, hearing preservation patients have binaural cues for improved speech understanding.

Keywords:
Binaural cues, Bilateral cochlear implant, Bimodal hearing, Hearing preservation patients
1.
Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA, Pillsbury CH, Clark MS, Haynes DS, Labadie RF, Amberg S, Roland PS, Kruger P, Novak MA, Wirth JA, Black JM, Peters R, Lake J, Wackym PA, Firszt JB, Wilson BS, Lawson DT, Schatzer R, D'Haese PS, Barco AL: Multicenter U.S. bilateral MED-EL cochlear implantation study: speech perception over the first year of use. Ear Hear 2008;29:20-32.
2.
Dawson PW, Decker JA, Psarros CE: Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear 2004;25:230-241.
3.
Dillon H, Byrne D, Brewer S, Katsch R, Ching TY, Keidser G: NAL nonlinear version 1.01 user manual. National Acoustics Laboratories, 1998.
4.
Dorman MF, Spahr AJ, Gifford RH, Cook S, Zhang T: Current research with cochlear implants at Arizona State University. J Am Acad Audiol 2012;23:385-395.
5.
Dunn CC, Perreau A, Gantz BJ, Tyler RS: Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 2010;21:44-51.
6.
Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Witt SA: Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005;48:668-680.
7.
Eapen RJ, Buss E, Adunka OF, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA: Hearing-in-noise benefit after bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation continues to improve 4 years after implantation. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:153-159.
8.
Festen JM, Plomp R: Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1986;79:465-471.
9.
Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Rubinstein JT: Binaural cochlear implants placed during the same operation. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:169-180.
10.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF: The psychophysics of low-frequency acoustic hearing in electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) and bimodal patients. J Hear Sci 2012;2:33-44.
11.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Brown CA: Psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing: Implications for perceiving speech and music via electric and acoustic stimulation. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2010;67:51-60.
12.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Polak M, Driscoll CLW, Roland PS, Buchman CA: Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear 2013;34:413-425.
13.
Henry P, Ricketts T: The effects of changes in head angle on auditory and visual input for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aids. Am J Audiol 2003;12:41-51.
14.
Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Stecker M, Muller-Deile J, Maune S, Dillier N, Weber B, Hey M, Begall K, Lenarz T, Battmer RD, Bohm M, Steffens T, Strutz J, Linder T, Probst R, Allum J, Westhofen M, Doering W: Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:958-968.
15.
Litovsky RY, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Sammeth C: Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear 2006;27:714-730.
16.
Morera C, Cavalle L, Manrique M, Huarte A, Angel R, Osorio A, Garcia-Ibanex L, Estrada E, Morera-Ballester C: Contralateral hearing aid use in cochlear implanted patients: multicenter study of bimodal benefit. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:1084-1094.
17.
Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A, Garcia-Ibanex L, Cavalle L, Huarte A, Castillo C, Estrada E: Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:596-606.
18.
Muller J, Schon F, Helms J: Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL Combi 40/40+ cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2002;23:198-206.
19.
Patrick JF, Busby PA, Gibson PJ: The development of the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif 2006;10:175-200.
20.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I: Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962;27:62-70.
21.
Rader T, Fastl H, Baumann U: Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Ear Hear 2013;34:324-332.
22.
Schafer EC, Amlani AM, Seibold A, Shattuck PL: A meta-analytic comparison of binaural benefits between bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18:760-776.
23.
Schleich P, Nopp P, D'Haese P: Head shadow, squelch and summation effects in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant. Ear Hear 2004;25:197-204.
24.
Schon F, Muller J, Helms J: Speech reception thresholds obtained in a symmetrical four-loudspeaker arrangement from bilateral users of MED-EL cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:710-714.
25.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle L, Oakes T, Cook S: Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012;33:112-117.
26.
Thornton AR, Raffin MJM: Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978;21:507-518.
27.
Tyler RS, Parkinson A, Wilson BS, Witt SA, Preece JP, Noble W: Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization. Ear Hear 2002;23:98-105.
28.
Verhaert N, Lazard DS, Gnansia D, Bebear JP, Romanet P, Meyer B, Pean V, Mollard D, Truy E: Speech performance and sound localization abilities in Neurelec Digisonic® SP binaural cochlear implant users. Audiol Neurootol 2012;17:256-266.
29.
Wackym PA, Runge-Samuelson CL, Firszt JB, Alkaf FM, Burg LS: More challenging speech-perception tasks demonstrate binaural benefit in bilateral cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2007;28:80S-85S.
30.
Yoon YS, Li Y, Fu QJ: Speech recognition and acoustic features in combined electric and acoustic stimulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012;55:105-124.
31.
Zeitler DM, Kessler MA, Terushkin V, Roland TJJ, Svirsky MA, Lalwani AK, Waltzman SB: Speech perception benefits of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children and adults: a retrospective analysis. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:314-325.
32.
Zhang T, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ: Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation. Ear Hear 2010;31:63-69.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.