State-of-the-Art on the Impact of Bimodal Acoustic Stimulation on Speech Perception in Noise in Adults: A Systematic Review.

bimodal stimulation new technologies noise speech perception

Journal

Audiology research
ISSN: 2039-4330
Titre abrégé: Audiol Res
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101644681

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 24 08 2024
revised: 09 10 2024
accepted: 15 10 2024
medline: 25 10 2024
pubmed: 25 10 2024
entrez: 25 10 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Bimodal stimulation (BS), which combines the use of a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear, is an established strategy to treat hearing loss by exploiting the unique capabilities of each device. CIs stimulate the auditory nerve by bypassing damaged hair cells, while HAs amplify sounds by requiring a functional hearing residual. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of BS such as speech perception in noise. We examined clinical studies published from October 2020 to July 2024, following the PRISMA guidelines, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of BS on speech perception in noise in adulthood. BS in adult patients significantly improves speech perception in quiet and noisy environments, especially for those with increased residual hearing. Unilateral CIs and BS perform similarly in quiet conditions, but BS significantly improves speech discrimination in noisy environments if loudness between the two devices is appropriately balanced. Directional microphones and programming software are new technologies that succeed in reducing environmental noise and improving verbal perception outcomes, although their features in the literature are controversial. In addition, the individuals using BS may face temporal mismatches mainly due to differing device latencies, affecting sound localization. Compensating for these mismatches can enhance localization accuracy. However, modulated noise remains a significant obstacle to verbal perception in noise. Valuable assessment tools such as music tests provide further information on hearing performance and quality of life. More research is needed to define certain selection criteria.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
Bimodal stimulation (BS), which combines the use of a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear, is an established strategy to treat hearing loss by exploiting the unique capabilities of each device. CIs stimulate the auditory nerve by bypassing damaged hair cells, while HAs amplify sounds by requiring a functional hearing residual. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of BS such as speech perception in noise.
METHODS METHODS
We examined clinical studies published from October 2020 to July 2024, following the PRISMA guidelines, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of BS on speech perception in noise in adulthood.
RESULTS RESULTS
BS in adult patients significantly improves speech perception in quiet and noisy environments, especially for those with increased residual hearing. Unilateral CIs and BS perform similarly in quiet conditions, but BS significantly improves speech discrimination in noisy environments if loudness between the two devices is appropriately balanced.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Directional microphones and programming software are new technologies that succeed in reducing environmental noise and improving verbal perception outcomes, although their features in the literature are controversial. In addition, the individuals using BS may face temporal mismatches mainly due to differing device latencies, affecting sound localization. Compensating for these mismatches can enhance localization accuracy. However, modulated noise remains a significant obstacle to verbal perception in noise. Valuable assessment tools such as music tests provide further information on hearing performance and quality of life. More research is needed to define certain selection criteria.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39452469
pii: audiolres14050077
doi: 10.3390/audiolres14050077
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

914-927

Auteurs

Antonio Casarella (A)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, Audiology Section, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Anna Notaro (A)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, Audiology Section, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Carla Laria (C)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, Audiology Section, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Nicola Serra (N)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, Audiology Section, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Elisabetta Genovese (E)

Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, Audiology Program University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Del Pozzo 71, 41124 Modena, Italy.

Rita Malesci (R)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, Audiology Section, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Gennaro Auletta (G)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, Audiology Section, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Anna Rita Fetoni (AR)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, Audiology Section, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Classifications MeSH