Aligning Hearing Aid and Cochlear Implant Improves Hearing Outcome in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
19
8
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
19
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with unilateral deafness and residual hearing on the contralateral ear can benefit from a cochlear implant (CI) on one side and a hearing aid (HA) on the other. However, hearing improvement among these patients is heterogenous. Interindividual differences in bimodal benefit may be caused by a mismatch of CI and HA. The aim of this study was to clinically apply a HA fitting strategy and to evaluate hearing outcome with and without a dedicated bimodal fitting formula. Prospective non-randomized study. Tertiary referral center. Twelve patients using a CI processor and a conventional HA were enrolled. Before and after the new HA had been adjusted to the patient and linked to the CI, pure-tone audiometry and localization tests were performed. Speech perception was determined in quiet and noise. Tests were repeated after 6 and 12 weeks. To evaluate the subjective listening comfort two questionnaires (Oldenburg Inventory and HISQUI19) were assessed. Therapeutic. Word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise. Speech perception in noise improved significantly: directed suppression of noise helped to segregate the target speech signal from a mixture of sounds or competing speakers. Evaluation of the questionnaires revealed a positive subjective hearing experience compared with patients' initial settings of the devices. By linking CI and HA hearing and speech perception can be improved. However, good counselling at the outset is essential to obtain enhanced outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32810012
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002796
pii: 00129492-202012000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1350-1356Références
Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Holden LK, Dwyer NY. Results in adult cochlear implant recipients with varied asymmetric hearing: a prospective longitudinal study of speech recognition, localization, and participant report. Ear Hear 2018; 39:845–862.
Veugen LCE, Chalupper J, Mens LHM, Snik AFM, van Opstal AJ. Effect of extreme adaptive frequency compression in bimodal listeners on sound localization and speech perception. Cochlear Implants Int 2017; 18:266–277.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Shallop JK, Sydlowski SA. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear 2010; 31:186–194.
van Loon MC, Smits C, Smit CF, Hensen EF, Merkus P. Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss: benefits of bimodal stimulation. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:e100–e106.
Siburt HW, Holmes AE. Bimodal programming: a survey of current clinical practice. Am J Audiol 2015; 24:243–249.
Scherf FW, Arnold LP. Exploring the clinical approach to the bimodal fitting of hearing aids and cochlear implants: results of an international survey. Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134:1151–1157.
Ching TY, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review. Trends Amplif 2007; 11:161–192.
Francart T, McDermott HJ. Psychophysics, fitting, and signal processing for combined hearing aid and cochlear implant stimulation. Ear Hear 2013; 34:685–700.
Neuman AC, Svirsky MA. Effect of hearing aid bandwidth on speech recognition performance of listeners using a cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid (bimodal hearing). Ear Hear 2013; 34:553–561.
Dillon H. Hearing Aids. Sydney: Thieme; 2001.
Keidser G, Dillon H, Carter L, O’Brien A. NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends Amplif 2012; 16:211–223.
Keidser G, Grant F. Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device. Ear Hear 2001; 22:501–515.
Vroegop JL, Homans NC, van der Schroeff MP, Goedegebure A. Comparing two hearing aid fitting algorithms for bimodal cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2019; 40:98–106.
Veugen LC, Chalupper J, Snik AF, Opstal AJ, Mens LH. Matching automatic gain control across devices in bimodal cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2016; 37:260–270.
Tech OI-RCoCH (Center of Competence for Hearing Aid System Technology Oldenburg). Subjective Hearing Handicap Questionnaire: Questionnaire Inventory for Hearing Aids; 2014.
Amann E, Anderson I. Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19). Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134:915–923.
Bionics A. Optimizing hearing for listeners with a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid; 2016. Available at: http://www.phonaknhs.co.uk/ProductDownloads/Upload/Bimodal_Fitting_Formula_White_Paper.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2020.
Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A, et al. 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.
Blamey PJ, Maat B, Baskent D, et al. A retrospective multicenter study comparing speech perception outcomes for bilateral implantation and bimodal rehabilitation. Ear Hear 2015; 36:408–416.
Volleth N, Hast A, Lehmann EK, Hoppe U. [Subjective improvement of hearing through cochlear implantation]. HNO 2018; 66:613–620.