Communication Under Sharply Degraded Auditory Input and the "2-Sentence" Problem.

OBJECTIVES: Despite performing well in standard clinical assessments of speech perception, many cochlear implant (CI) users report experiencing significant difficulties when listening in real-world environments. We hypothesize that this disconnect may be related, in part, to the limited ecological validity of tests that are currently used clinically and in research laboratories. The challenges that arise from degraded auditory information provided by a CI, combined with the listener's finite cognitive resources, may lead to difficulties when processing speech material that is more demanding than the single words or single sentences that are used in clinical tests. DESIGN: Here, we investigate whether speech identification performance and processing effort (indexed by pupil dilation measures) are affected when CI users or normal-hearing control subjects are asked to repeat two sentences presented sequentially instead of just one sentence. RESULTS: Response accuracy was minimally affected in normal-hearing listeners, but CI users showed a wide range of outcomes, from no change to decrements of up to 45 percentage points. The amount of decrement was not predictable from the CI users' performance in standard clinical tests. Pupillometry measures tracked closely with task difficulty in both the CI group and the normal-hearing group, even though the latter had speech perception scores near ceiling levels for all conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Speech identification performance is significantly degraded in many (but not all) CI users in response to input that is only slightly more challenging than standard clinical tests; specifically, when two sentences are presented sequentially before requesting a response, instead of presenting just a single sentence at a time. This potential "2-sentence problem" represents one of the simplest possible scenarios that go beyond presentation of the single words or sentences used in most clinical tests of speech perception, and it raises the possibility that even good performers in single-sentence tests may be seriously impaired by other ecologically relevant manipulations. The present findings also raise the possibility that a clinical version of a 2-sentence test may provide actionable information for counseling and rehabilitating CI users, and for people who interact with them closely.

Valid Acoustic Models of Cochlear Implants: One Size Does Not Fit All.

HYPOTHESIS: This study tests the hypothesis that it is possible to find tone or noise vocoders that sound similar and result in similar speech perception scores to a cochlear implant (CI). This would validate the use of such vocoders as acoustic models of CIs. We further hypothesize that those valid acoustic models will require a personalized amount of frequency mismatch between input filters and output tones or noise bands. BACKGROUND: Noise or tone vocoders have been used as acoustic models of CIs in hundreds of publications but have never been convincingly validated. METHODS: Acoustic models were evaluated by single-sided deaf CI users who compared what they heard with the CI in one ear to what they heard with the acoustic model in the other ear. We evaluated frequency-matched models (both all-channel and 6-channel models, both tone and noise vocoders) as well as self-selected models that included an individualized level of frequency mismatch. RESULTS: Self-selected acoustic models resulted in similar levels of speech perception and similar perceptual quality as the CI. These models also matched the CI in terms of perceived intelligibility, harshness, and pleasantness. CONCLUSION: Valid acoustic models of CIs exist, but they are different from the models most widely used in the literature. Individual amounts of frequency mismatch may be required to optimize the validity of the model. This may be related to the basalward frequency mismatch experienced by postlingually deaf patients after cochlear implantation.

Speech Perception Changes in the Acoustically Aided, Nonimplanted Ear after Cochlear Implantation: A Multicenter Study.

In recent years there has been an increasing percentage of cochlear implant (CI) users who have usable residual hearing in the contralateral, nonimplanted ear, typically aided by acoustic amplification. This raises the issue of the extent to which the signal presented through the cochlear implant may influence how listeners process information in the acoustically stimulated ear. This multicenter retrospective study examined pre- to postoperative changes in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear, the implanted ear, and both together. Results in the latter two conditions showed the expected increases, but speech perception in the nonimplanted ear showed a modest yet meaningful decrease that could not be completely explained by changes in unaided thresholds, hearing aid malfunction, or several other demographic variables. Decreases in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear were more likely in individuals who had better levels of speech perception in the implanted ear, and in those who had better speech perception in the implanted than in the nonimplanted ear. This raises the possibility that, in some cases, bimodal listeners may rely on the higher quality signal provided by the implant and may disregard or even neglect the input provided by the nonimplanted ear.

Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Ninety-four unilateral CI patients with bimodal listening experience (CI plus HA in contralateral ear) completed a questionnaire that focused on attitudes toward hearing aid use postimplantation, patterns of usage, and perceived bimodal benefits in daily life. Eighty participants continued HA use and 14 discontinued HA use at the time of the questionnaire. Participant responses provided useful information for counseling patients both before and after implantation. The majority of continuing bimodal (CI plus HA) participants reported adapting to using both devices within 3 months and also reported that they heard better bimodally in quiet, noisy, and reverberant conditions. They also perceived benefits including improved sound quality, better music enjoyment, and sometimes a perceived sense of acoustic balance. Those who discontinued HA use found either that using the HA did not provide additional benefit over the CI alone or that using the HA degraded the signal from the CI. Because there was considerable overlap in the audiograms and in speech recognition performance in the unimplanted ear between the two groups, we recommend that unilateral CI recipients are counseled to continue to use the HA in the contralateral ear postimplantation in order to determine whether or not they receive functional or perceived benefit from using both devices together.