Objective: To identify clinical criteria for selecting the aiding device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). Methods: Sixty-five children, including 36 bilateral CI users and 29 bimodal users, participated in the study. A speech perception test (monosyllabic word test) in noise was administered. The target speech (65 dB sound pressure level) was presented from the front loudspeaker, and noise (10 dB signal-to-noise ratio) was presented from 3 directions: from in front of the child and 90° to the child's right and left sides. The test was performed using the first CI alone and under bilateral CI or bimodal conditions. The bilateral benefits to speech perception in noise were compared between bilateral CI users and bimodal users. Results: Significant benefits in speech perception in noise were evident in bilateral CI users in all 3 noise conditions. In bimodal users, the hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz in the nonimplanted ear affected the bilateral benefit. Bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold ≤90 dB hearing level (HL) showed a significant bilateral benefit in various noise conditions. By contrast, bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL showed no significant bilateral benefits in all 3 noise conditions. Conclusions: Bilateral CI and bimodal listening provide better speech perception in noise than unilateral CI alone in children. The contralateral CI is better than bimodal listening for children with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL. A hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz may be a good criterion for deciding on the type of device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral CI.

Keywords:
Cochlear implant, Hearing aid, Bilateral cochlear implants
1.
Basura GJ, Eapen R, Buchman CA: Bilateral cochlear implantation: current concepts, indications, and results. Laryngoscope 2009;119:2395-2401.
2.
Beijen JW, Mylanus EA, Leeuw AR, Snik AF: Should a hearing aid in the contralateral ear be recommended for children with a unilateral cochlear implant? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117:397-403.
3.
Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA, Pillsbury CH, Clark MS, Haynes DS, et al: Multicenter US bilateral MED-EL cochlear implantation study: speech perception over the first year of use. Ear Hear 2008;29:20-32.
4.
Ching TY, Incerti P, Hill M: Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear 2004;25:9-21.
5.
Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Witt S, Ji H, Gantz BJ: Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation: speech perception and localization pre- and post-second cochlear implantation. Am J Audiol 2012;21:181-189.
6.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, McKarns SA, Spahr AJ: Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007;50:835-843.
7.
Hopkins K, Moore BC: The importance of temporal fine structure information in speech at different spectral regions for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;127:1595-1608.
8.
Illg A, Bojanowicz M, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T et al: Evaluation of the bimodal benefit in a large cohort of cochlear implant subjects using a contralateral hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:e240-e244.
9.
Jang JH, Lee JH, Chang SO, Oh SH: Effect of aided hearing in the nonimplanted ear on bimodal hearing. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:e270-e276.
10.
Joris PX, Yin TC: Responses to amplitude-modulated tones in the auditory nerve of the cat. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;91:215-232.
11.
Kokkinakis K, Pak N: Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices. J Acoust Soc Am 2014;135:EL47-EL53.
12.
Kühn-Inacker H, Shehata-Dieler W, Müller J, Helms J: Bilateral cochlear implants: a way to optimize auditory perception abilities in deaf children? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2004;68:1257-1266.
13.
Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Stecker M, Müller-Deile J, Maune S, Dillier N, et al: Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the Nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:958-968.
14.
Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Sammeth C: Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear 2006;27:714-731.
15.
Mok M, Galvin KL, Dowell RC, McKay CM: Speech perception benefit for children with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears and children with bilateral cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 2010;15:44-56.
16.
Morera C, Cavalle L, Manrique M, Huarte A, Angel R, Osorio A, et al: Contralateral hearing aid use in cochlear implanted patients: multicenter study of bimodal benefit. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:1084-1094.
17.
Ramsden R, Greenham P, O'Driscoll M, Mawman D, Proops D, Craddock L, et al: Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:988-998.
18.
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.
19.
Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ: Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002;416:87-90.
20.
Yoon YS, Shin YR, Fu QJ: Clinical selection criteria for a second cochlear implant for bimodal listeners. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1161-1168.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.