Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: a case study.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies suggest that pitch perceived through cochlear implants (CIs) changes with experience to minimize spectral mismatches between electric and acoustic hearing. This study aimed to test whether perceived spectral mismatches are similarly minimized between two electric inputs. DESIGN: Pitch perception was studied in a subject with a 10-mm CI in one ear and a 24-mm CI in the other ear. Both processors were programmed to allocate information from the same frequency range of 188-7938 Hz, despite the large differences in putative insertion depth and stimulated cochlear locations between the CIs. RESULTS: After 2 and 3 years of experience, pitch-matched electrode pairs between CIs were aligned closer to the processor-provided frequencies than to cochlear position. CONCLUSIONS: Pitch perception may have adapted to reduce perceived spectral discrepancies between bilateral CI inputs, despite 2-3 octave differences in tonotopic mapping.

Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: This study documents the importance of preserving residual low-frequency acoustic hearing as those with more residual hearing are selected for cochlear implantation. Surgical strategies used for hearing preservation with a short hybrid cochlear implant are outlined. The benefits of preserved residual low-frequency hearing, improved word understanding in noise, and music appreciation are described. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, single-subject design. METHODS: Records were reviewed of 21 individuals participating in an Food and Drug Administration (FDA) feasibility clinical trial who have received an Iowa/Nucleus 10 mm electrode. A second group of subjects receiving implants at the University of Iowa that have used the 10 mm device between 2 years and 6 months were also reviewed. Outcome measures included standardized tests of monosyllabic word understanding, spondees in noise, and common melody recognition. RESULTS: Low-frequency hearing was maintained in all individuals immediately postoperative. One subject lost hearing at 2.5 months postoperative after a viral infection. The group has averaged a loss of -9 dB low-frequency acoustic hearing between 125 and 1,000 Hz. Monosyllabic word understanding scores at 6 months for a group being followed for an FDA clinical trial using the implant plus hearing aids was 69% correct. For the long-term group receiving implants at Iowa, monosyllabic word understanding in those who have used the device between 6 months and 2 years is 79%. Other important findings include improved recognition of speech in noise (9 dB improvement) as compared with standard cochlear implant recipients who were matched for speech recognition in quiet and near normal recognition of common melodies. CONCLUSION: The surgical strategies outlined have been successful in preservation of low-frequency hearing in 96% of individuals. Combined electrical and acoustical speech processing has enabled this group of volunteers to gain improved word understanding as compared with their preoperative hearing with bilateral hearing aids and a group of individuals receiving a standard cochlear implant with similar experience with their device. The improvement of speech in noise and melody recognition is attributed to the ability to distinguish fine pitch differences as the result of preserved residual low-frequency acoustic hearing. Preservation of low-frequency acoustic hearing is important for improving speech in noise and music appreciation for the hearing impaired, both of which are important in real-life situations.

Residual speech perception and cochlear implant performance in postlingually deafened adults.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at testing the post-hoc validity of the previously reported predictive index for postoperative cochlear implant performance, based on preoperative duration of deafness, and speech reception. STUDY DESIGN: Adult patients with postlingual severe to profound hearing loss, who were implanted with Cochlear Corporation CI-22 and CI-24 devices were included in this study. We studied the relationship between their postoperative word recognition scores and preoperative factors, namely, duration of deafness, and sentence recognition. We used the same predictive index reported in the previous study to predict their postoperative scores and test the model's agreement with the actual performance. RESULTS: We found that postoperative performance as measured by CNC word scores had an inverse relationship with the duration of deafness, and a direct correlation with the preoperative performance on CID sentence recognition tests. A nonlinear term [Duration / (1+CID)] was shown to improve the correlation coefficient of our predictive index. CONCLUSION: Some predictability of cochlear implant outcome is possible depending on the preoperative duration of deafness and speech recognition abilities. Preoperative residual speech recognition acts as a "trophic factor" that protects the spiral ganglion and/ or the central auditory pathways from degeneration. In other words, it improves the expected postoperative word scores.

Three-month results with bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate possible binaural listening advantages for speech in quiet, speech in noise, and for localization in a group of postlingually deafened adults with two cochlear implants functioning independently after 3 mo experience. DESIGN: Nine postlingually deafened subjects who had received a Cochlear Corporation CI24M implant in each ear were evaluated on a number of tasks. The subjects all had audiometric or biographical (e.g., duration of deafness) differences between the ears. Word and sentence materials were presented to the subjects in quiet and in noise with the signal always in the front and the noise from the front or either side. Results are reported for each ear and for both ears with the noise on either side. This allowed evaluation of head shadow and squelch effects. Additionally, localization ability was assessed for broadband noise presented either to the right or left of center at 45 degrees azimuth. Localization was assessed for each ear and for both ears. RESULTS: Results of speech testing in quiet showed a significant advantage for the binaural condition over the better ear in four subjects. In noise, with both signal and noise in front of the subject, a significant advantage of two ears over the better ear was found for four subjects. For noise to one side of the head, when the ear opposite the noise source was added to the ear ipsilateral to the noise, a significant advantage was demonstrated for seven of seven tested subjects. When the ear ipsilateral to the noise was added to the ear contralateral to the noise, a significant advantage was shown for only one of seven (noise on right) and three of seven (noise on left) tested subjects. The localization task showed that all seven tested subjects could discriminate 45 degrees left from 45 degrees right above chance with bilateral stimulation. Three subjects could perform the discrimination above chance with only one ear. However, performance with both ears was significantly better than performance with one ear for two of these latter subjects. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that bilateral cochlear implants can provide real advantages, particularly when it is possible to utilize the ear that is away from a noise source, thus taking advantage of the head shadow effect. In addition, localization ability was generally better with two implants than with one.

Binaural cochlear implants placed during the same operation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the binaural listening advantages for speech in quiet and in noise and to localize sound when independently programmed binaural cochlear implants are used, and to determine whether ears with different hearing ability and duration of profound deafness perform differently with cochlear implants as well as to what extent preimplant psychophysical and physiologic assessment could be predictive of performance. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study in which patients were prospectively selected to undergo bilateral implantation during a single surgical procedure at a tertiary referral center. All testing was performed with patients using their right, left, or both cochlear implants. Preimplant and intraoperative measures used electrical stimulation at the round window and stimulation through the cochlear implant. RESULTS: Bilateral implantation during the same operation did not cause any postoperative problems such as severe vertigo or ataxia. At 1 year, results of speech testing in quiet demonstrated a binaural advantage for 2 of 10 subjects. Speech-in-noise testing demonstrated that two implants were beneficial for two individuals. All subjects benefited from a head shadow effect when an ear with a better signal-to-noise ratio was available. The ability to localize sound was improved with binaural implants in all subjects. Preimplant psychophysical or physiologic measures were not predictive of eventual speech perception performance. CONCLUSION: Binaural cochlear implants can assist in the localization of sounds and have the potential in some individuals to improve speech understanding in quiet and in noise.