Listening Effort Measured With Pupillometry in Cochlear Implant Users Depends on Sound Level, But Not on the Signal to Noise Ratio When Using the Matrix Test.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether listening effort is dependent on task difficulty for cochlear implant (CI) users when using the Matrix speech-in-noise test. To this end, we measured peak pupil dilation (PPD) at a wide range of signal to noise ratios (SNR) by systematically changing the noise level at a constant speech level, and vice versa. DESIGN: A group of mostly elderly CI users performed the Dutch/Flemish Matrix test in quiet and in multitalker babble at different SNRs. SNRs were set relative to the speech-recognition threshold (SRT), namely at SRT, and 5 and 10 dB above SRT (0 dB, +5 dB, and +10 dB re SRT). The latter 2 conditions were obtained by either varying speech level (at a fixed noise level of 60 dBA) or by varying noise level (with a fixed speech level). We compared these PPDs with those of a group of typical hearing (TH) listeners. In addition, listening effort was assessed with subjective ratings on a Likert scale. RESULTS: PPD for the CI group did not significantly depend on SNR, whereas SNR significantly affected PPDs for TH listeners. Subjective effort ratings depended significantly on SNR for both groups. For CI users, PPDs were significantly larger, and effort was rated higher when speech was varied, and noise was fixed for CI users. By contrast, for TH listeners effort ratings were significantly higher and performance scores lower when noise was varied, and speech was fixed. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a significant effect of varying SNR on PPD suggests that the Matrix test may not be a feasible speech test for measuring listening effort with pupillometric measures for CI users. A rating test appeared more promising in this population, corroborating earlier reports that subjective measures may reflect different dimensions of listening effort than pupil dilation. Establishing the SNR by varying speech or noise level can have subtle, but significant effects on measures of listening effort, and these effects can differ between TH listeners and CI users.

The Benefit of Bimodal Hearing and Beamforming for Cochlear Implant Users.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation is the standard treatment for severe to profound hearing loss. While cochlear implant (CI) users can communicate effectively in quiet environments, speech understanding in noise remains challenging. Bimodal hearing, combining a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the other, has shown advantages over unilateral electrical hearing, especially for speech understanding in noisy conditions. Beamforming is a technique used to improve speech understanding in noise by detecting sound direction and enhancing frontal (speech) sounds while attenuating background noise. One specific beamformer, Stereozoom, combines signals from microphones in both ears to create a focused beam toward the front resulting in a binaural beamformer (BB), in order to improve speech intelligibility in noise for bilateral and bimodal CI users. METHODS: A prospective crossover study involving 17 bimodal CI users was conducted, and participants were tested with various device configurations (CI, HA, CI + HA) with and without BB. Speech recognition testing with the Dutch/Flemish matrix test was performed in a sound-attenuated booth with diffuse noise to simulate realistic listening conditions. RESULTS: The results showed a statistically significant benefit of bimodal hearing over the CI configuration and showed a statistical significant benefit of BB for the CI and CI + HA configuration. The benefit of BB in the HA configuration was not statistically significant probably due to the higher variance. The benefit of BB in the three configurations did not differ statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, bimodal hearing offers advantages for speech understanding in noise for CI users. BB provides a benefit in various device configurations, leading to improved speech intelligibility when speech comes from the front in challenging listening environments.

Residual Hearing Does Not Influence the Effectiveness of Beamforming when Using a Cochlear Implant in Conjunction with Contralateral Routing of Signals.

INTRODUCTION: Contralateral routing of signals (CROS) overcomes the head shadow effect by redirecting speech signals from the contralateral ear to the better-hearing cochlear implant (CI) ear. Here we tested the performance of an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB) and a fixed binaural beamformer (BB) using the CROS system of Advanced Bionics. METHODS: In a group of 17 unilateral CI users, we evaluated the benefits of MB and BB for speech recognition by measuring speech reception threshold (SRT) with and without beamforming. MB and BB were additionally evaluated with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements using a KEMAR manikin. We also assessed the effect of residual hearing in the CROS ear on the benefits of MB and BB. Speech was delivered in front of the listener in a background of homogeneous 8-talker babble noise. RESULTS: With CI-CROS in omnidirectional settings with the T-mic active on the CI as a reference, BB significantly improved SRT by 1.4 dB, whereas MB yielded no significant improvements. The difference in effects on SRT between the two beamformers was, however, not significant. SNR effects were substantially larger, at 2.1 dB for MB and 5.8 dB for BB. CI-CROS with default omnidirectional settings also improved SRT and SNR by 1 dB over CI alone. Residual hearing did not significantly affect beamformer performance. DISCUSSION: We recommend the use of BB over MB for CI-CROS users. Residual hearing in the CROS ear is not a limiting factor for fitting a CROS device, although a bimodal option should be considered.

Dynamic Current Focusing Compared to Monopolar Stimulation in a Take-Home Trial of Cochlear Implant Users.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the performance of a dynamic partial tripolar cochlear implant speech encoding strategy termed dynamic current focusing (DCF) to monopolar stimulation (MP) using spectro-temporal, temporal, and speech-in-noise recognition testing. DESIGN: DCF is a strategy that utilizes tripolar or high partial tripolar stimulation at threshold level and increases loudness by slowly widening current spread towards most comfortable level. Thirteen cochlear implant users were fitted with DCF and a non-steered MP matched on pulse rate, pulse width, and active electrodes. Nine participants completed the single-blinded within-subject crossover trial. Repeated testing consisted of four sessions. Strategies were allocated in a DCF-MP-DCF-MP or MP-DCF-MP-DCF design. Three-week adaptation periods ended with a test session in which speech-in-noise recognition (matrix speech-in-noise sentence test), spectro-temporal ripple tests (SMRT and STRIPES) and a temporal amplitude modulation detection test were conducted. All participants recorded their subjective experiences with both strategies using the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants' SMRT thresholds improved 0.40 ripples per octave ( p = 0.02, Bonferroni-corrected: p = 0.1) with DCF over MP at 65 dB SPL. No significant differences between the strategies were found on speech-in-noise recognition at conversational (65 dB SPL) and soft (45 dB SPL) loudness levels, temporal testing, STRIPES, or the SMRT at 45 dB SPL. After Bonferroni correction, a learning effect remained on the matrix speech-in-noise sentence test at both loudness levels (65 dB SPL: p = 0.01; 45 dB SPL: p = 0.02). There was no difference in learning effects over time between DCF and MP. Similarly, no significant differences were found in subjective experience on the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire. DCF reduced average battery life by 48% (5.1 hours) ( p < 0.001) compared to MP. CONCLUSIONS: DCF may improve spectral resolution over MP at comfortable loudness (65 dB SPL) in cochlear implant users. However, the evidence collected in this study was weak and the significant result disappeared after Bonferroni correction. Also, not all spectral tests revealed this improvement. As expected, battery life was reduced for DCF. Although the current study is limited by its small sample size, considering previous studies, DCF does not consistently improve speech recognition in noise over MP strategies.

Comparison of Multipole Stimulus Configurations With Respect to Loudness and Spread of Excitation.

OBJECTIVE: Current spread is a substantial limitation of speech coding strategies in cochlear implants. Multipoles have the potential to reduce current spread and thus generate more discriminable pitch percepts. The difficulty with multipoles is reaching sufficient loudness. The primary goal was to compare the loudness characteristics and spread of excitation (SOE) of three types of phased array stimulation, a novel multipole, with three more conventional configurations. DESIGN: Fifteen postlingually deafened cochlear implant users performed psychophysical experiments addressing SOE, loudness scaling, loudness threshold, loudness balancing, and loudness discrimination. Partial tripolar stimulation (pTP, σ = 0.75), TP, phased array with 16 (PA16) electrodes, and restricted phased array with five (PA5) and three (PA3) electrodes was compared with a reference monopolar stimulus. RESULTS: Despite a similar loudness growth function, there were considerable differences in current expenditure. The most energy efficient multipole was the pTP, followed by PA16 and PA5/PA3. TP clearly stood out as the least efficient one. Although the electric dynamic range was larger with multipolar configurations, the number of discriminable steps in loudness was not significantly increased. The SOE experiment could not demonstrate any difference between the stimulation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The loudness characteristics all five multipolar configurations tested are similar. Because of their higher energy efficiency, pTP and PA16 are the most favorable candidates for future testing in clinical speech coding strategies.