Search

Objective: Our primary aim was to determine whether listeners in the following patient groups achieve localization accuracy within the 95th percentile of accuracy shown by younger or older normal-hearing (NH) listeners: (1) hearing impaired with bilateral hearing aids, (2) bimodal cochlear implant (CI), (3) bilateral CI, (4) hearing preservation CI, (5) single-sided deaf CI and (6) combined bilateral CI and bilateral hearing preservation. Design: The listeners included 57 young NH listeners, 12 older NH listeners, 17 listeners fit with hearing aids, 8 bimodal CI listeners, 32 bilateral CI listeners, 8 hearing preservation CI listeners, 13 single-sided deaf CI listeners and 3 listeners with bilateral CIs and bilateral hearing preservation. Sound source localization was assessed in a sound-deadened room with 13 loudspeakers arrayed in a 180-degree arc. Results: The root mean square (rms) error for the NH listeners was 6 degrees. The 95th percentile was 11 degrees. Nine of 16 listeners with bilateral hearing aids achieved scores within the 95th percentile of normal. Only 1 of 64 CI patients achieved a score within that range. Bimodal CI listeners scored at a level near chance, as did the listeners with a single CI or a single NH ear. Listeners with (1) bilateral CIs, (2) hearing preservation CIs, (3) single-sided deaf CIs and (4) both bilateral CIs and bilateral hearing preservation, all showed rms error scores within a similar range (mean scores between 20 and 30 degrees of error). Conclusion: Modern CIs do not restore a normal level of sound source localization for CI listeners with access to sound information from two ears.

The aim of this article was to study sound source localization by cochlear implant (CI) listeners with low-frequency (LF) acoustic hearing in both the operated ear and in the contralateral ear. Eight CI listeners had symmetrical LF acoustic hearing and 4 had asymmetrical LF acoustic hearing. The effects of two variables were assessed: (i) the symmetry of the LF thresholds in the two ears and (ii) the presence/absence of bilateral acoustic amplification. Stimuli consisted of low-pass, high-pass, and wideband noise bursts presented in the frontal horizontal plane. Localization accuracy was 23° of error for the symmetrical listeners and 76° of error for the asymmetrical listeners. The presence of a unilateral CI used in conjunction with bilateral LF acoustic hearing does not impair sound source localization accuracy, but amplification for acoustic hearing can be detrimental to sound source localization accuracy.

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.

Fifteen patients fit with a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear were presented with tests of speech and melody recognition and voice discrimination under conditions of electric (E) stimulation, acoustic (A) stimulation and combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). When acoustic information was added to electrically stimulated information performance increased by 17–23 percentage points on tests of word and sentence recognition in quiet and sentence recognition in noise. On average, the EAS patients achieved higher scores on CNC words than patients fit with a unilateral cochlear implant. While the best EAS patients did not outperform the best patients fit with a unilateral cochlear implant, proportionally more EAS patients achieved very high scores on tests of speech recognition than unilateral cochlear implant patients.