Background: The combination of acoustic and electric stimulation as a way to enhance speech recognition performance in cochlear implant (CI) users has generated considerable interest in the recent years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bimodal advantage of the FS4 speech processing strategy in combination with hearing aids (HA) as a means to improve low-frequency resolution in CI patients. Methods: Nineteen postlingual CI adults were selected to participate in this study. All patients wore implants on one side and HA on the contralateral side with residual hearing. Monosyllabic word recognition, speech in noise, and emotion and talker identification were assessed using CI with fine structure processing/FS4 and high-definition continuous interleaved sampling strategies, HA alone, and a combination of CI and HA. Results: The bimodal stimulation showed improvement in speech performance and emotion identification for the question/statement/order tasks, which was statistically significant compared to patients with CI alone, but there were no significant statistical differences in intragender talker discrimination and emotion identification for the happy/angry/neutral tasks. The poorest performance was obtained with HA only, and it was statistically significant compared to the other modalities. Conclusion: The bimodal stimulation showed enhanced speech performance in CI patients, and it improves the limitations provided by electric or acoustic stimulation alone.

Keywords:
Cochlear implant, Bimodal stimulation, Hearing aid, Enhancing speech performance
1.
Qin M, Oxenham A: Effects of simulated cochlear implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:446-454.
2.
Cullington H, Zeng F: Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination and talker identification. Ear Hear 2011;32:16-30.
3.
Büchner A, Schüssler M, Battmer R, Stover T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T: Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol Neurootol 2009;14:8-13.
4.
Micheyl CH, Oxenham A: Comparing models of the combined-stimulation advantage for speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2012;131:3970-3980.
5.
Ching T, Incerti P, Hill M: Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear 2004;25:9-21.
6.
Kong Y, Stickney G, Zeng F: Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:1351-1361.
7.
Mok M, Grayden D, Dowell RC, Lawrence D: Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2006;49:338-351.
8.
Morera C, Cavalle L, Manrique M, Huarte A, Angel R, Osorio A, Garcia-Ibanez L, Estradae E, Morera-Ballester C: Contralateral hearing aid use in cochlear implanted patients:Multicenter study of bimodal benefit. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:1084-1094.
9.
Heng J, Cantarero G, Limb CH: Impaired perception of temporal fine structure and musical timbre in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2011;280:192-200.
10.
Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, Behrens A, Henry BA: Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:1729-1735.
11.
Soliman S: Speech discrimination audiometry using Arabic balanced words. Ain Shams Med J 1976;27:27-30.
12.
Tawfik S, Shehata W, Shalabi A: Development of Arabic speech intelligibility in noise (SPIN) test. Ain Shams Med J 1992;3:677-682.
13.
Qin M, Oxenham A: Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:2417-2426.
14.
Kong Y, Carlyon R: Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;121:3717-3727.
15.
Brown C, Bacon S: Fundamental frequency and speech intelligibility in background noise. Hear Res 2010;266:52-59.
16.
Yang Y, Yongxin L, Qian F: Speech recognition and acoustic features in combined electric and acoustic stimulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012;55:105-124.
17.
Nittrouer S, Chapman C: The effects of bilateral electric and bimodal electric-acoustic stimulation on language development. Trends Amplif 2009;13:190-205.
18.
Li N, Loizou PC: A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;123:2287-2294.
19.
Anisa S, Mahan A, Karolina K, Colette M: Beneficial acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users with residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2012;131:4042-4050.
20.
Chatterjee M, Peng SC: Processing F0 with cochlear implants: modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hear Res 2008;235:143-156.
21.
Riss D, Arnoldner C, Baumgartner W, Kaider A, Hamzavi J: A new fine structure speech coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:784-788.
22.
Müller J, Brill S, Hagen R, Moeltner A, Brokmeier S, Stark T, Helbig S, Maurer J, Zahnert T, Zeirhofer C, Nopp P, Anderson I: Clinical trial results with the MED-EL fine structure processing coding strategy in experienced cochlear implant users. ORL 2012;74:185-198.
23.
Kleine Punte A, De Bodt M, Van de Heyning P: Long-term improvement of speech perception with the fine structure processing coding strategy in cochlear implants. ORL 2014;76:36-43.
24.
Rendall D, Kollias S, Ney C, Lioyd P: Pitch (F0) and formant profiles of human vowels and vowel-like baboon grunts: the role of vocalizer body size and voice-acoustic allometry. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:944-955.
25.
Ahadi M, Pourbakht A, Jafari A, Shirjian Z, Jafarpisheh A: Gender disparity in subcortical encoding of binaurally presented speech stimuli: an auditory evoked potentials study. Auris Nasus Larynx 2014;41:239-243.
26.
Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Nogaki G, Galvin JJ 3rd: Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:1711-1718.
27.
Luo X, Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd: Vocal emotion recognition by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Trends Amplif 2007;11:301-315.
28.
Peters K, Remmel E, Richards D: Language, mental state vocabulary, and false belief understanding in children with cochlear implants. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2009;40:245-255.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.