Hybrid Music Perception Outcomes: Implications for Melody and Timbre Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether or not electric-acoustic music perception outcomes, observed in a recent Hybrid L24 clinical trial, were related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic cues not present in the electric domain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, repeated-measures, within-subject design. SETTING: Academic research hospital. SUBJECTS: Nine normally hearing individuals. INTERVENTION: Simulated electric-acoustic hearing in normally hearing individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Acutely measured melody and timbre recognition scores from the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (CAMP) test. RESULTS: Melody recognition scores were consistently better for listening conditions that included low-frequency acoustic information. Mean scores for both acoustic (73.5%, S.D. = 15.5%) and electric-acoustic (67.9%, S.D. = 21.2%) conditions were significantly better (p < 0.001) than electric alone (39.2%, S.D. = 18.1%). This was not the case for timbre recognition for which scores were more variable across simulated listening modes with no significant differences found in mean scores across electric (36.1%, S.D. = 17.7%), acoustic (38.0%, S.D. = 20.4%), and electric-acoustic (40.7%, S.D. = 19.7%) conditions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Recipients of hybrid cochlear implants demonstrate music perception abilities superior to those observed in traditional cochlear implant recipients. Results from the present study support the notion that electric-acoustic stimulation confers advantages related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic hearing, most particularly for melody recognition. However, timbre recognition remains more limited for both hybrid and traditional cochlear implant users. Opportunities remain for new coding strategies to improve timbre perception.

Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the long-term benefits of implantation in patients with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, this report provides 5-year follow-up on a group of implant recipients who were subjects of the Cochlear™ Nucleus® Hybrid™ L24 Implant System pivotal clinical study. METHODS: The results of three related clinical studies were compiled to provide outcome data after 1, 3, and 5 years of implant use in a group of subjects who presented with preoperative high-frequency hearing loss and were implanted with a Nucleus Hybrid L24 (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia) cochlear implant. A subset of the 50 adult subjects (N = 32) who participated in the Hybrid L24 pivotal Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) completed comprehensive evaluations at 12 months postactivation, 3 years postactivation, and then as part of a postapproval study at 5 years postactivation. Testing included audiometric, speech perception, and subjective satisfaction measures. RESULTS: Mean unilateral speech perception performance was significantly improved at all postoperative intervals compared to preoperative best-aided results and has remained stable to 5 years postactivation. Ninety-four percent of subjects had measurable hearing, and 72% continued to use electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear after 5 years of implant use. Subjective satisfaction results support objective performance improvements. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate long-term success of patients with high-frequency hearing loss following Hybrid L24 (Cochlear) cochlear implantation. Benefits include speech perception abilities significantly better than those in the preoperative best-aided condition, with additional benefit in those using electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. Laryngoscope, 1939-1945, 2018.

United States multicenter clinical trial of the cochlear nucleus hybrid implant system.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of acoustic and electric sound processing for individuals with significant residual low-frequency hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-arm repeated measures, single-subject design. METHODS: Fifty individuals, ≥ 18 years old, with low-frequency hearing and severe high-frequency loss were implanted with the Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid L24 implant at 10 investigational sites. Preoperatively, subjects demonstrated consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores of 10% through 60% in the ear to be implanted. Subjects were assessed prospectively, preoperatively, and postoperatively on coprimary endpoints of consonant-nucleus-consonant words, AzBio sentences in noise, and self-assessment measures. RESULTS: Significant mean improvements were observed for coprimary endpoints: consonant-nucleus-consonant words (35.8 percentage points) and AzBio sentences in noise (32.0 percentage points), both at P < 0.001. Ninety-six percent of subjects performed equal or better on speech in quiet and 90% in noise. Eighty-two percent of subjects showed improved performance on speech in quiet and 74% in noise. Self-assessments were positive, corroborating speech perception results. CONCLUSION: The Nucleus Hybrid System provides significant improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and noise for individuals with severe high-frequency loss and some low-frequency hearing. This device expands indications to hearing-impaired individuals who perform poorly with amplification due to bilateral high-frequency hearing loss and who previously were not implant candidates.

An attempt to improve bilateral cochlear implants by increasing the distance between electrodes and providing complementary information to the two ears.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation was to determine if adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients could benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum was interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. DESIGN: Two separate experiments were conducted. In both experiments, subjects were tested using a control speech processing strategy and a strategy in which the full input spectrum was filtered so that only the output of half of the filters was audible to one implant, while the output of the alternative filters was audible to the other implant. The filters were interleaved in a way that created alternate frequency "holes" between the two cochlear implants. RESULTS: In experiment one, four subjects were tested on consonant recognition. Results indicated that one of the four subjects performed better with the interleaved strategy, one subject received a binaural advantage with the interleaved strategy that they did not receive with the control strategy, and two subjects showed no decrement in performance when using the interleaved strategy. In the second experiment, 11 subjects were tested on word recognition, sentences in noise, and localization (it should be noted that not all subjects participated in all tests). Results showed that for speech perception testing one subject achieved significantly better scores with the interleaved strategy on all tests, and seven subjects showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy on at least one test. Only one subject showed a decrement in performance on all speech perception tests with the interleaved strategy. Out of nine subjects, one subject preferred the sound quality of the interleaved strategy. No one performed better on localization with the interleaved strategy. CONCLUSION: Data from this study indicate that some adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients can benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum is interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. It is possible that the subjects in this study who showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy did so because of less channel interaction; however, this hypothesis was not directly tested.

Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results.

Acoustic plus electric (electric-acoustic) speech processing has been successful in highlighting the important role of articulation information in consonant recognition in those adults that have profound high-frequency hearing loss at frequencies greater than 1500 Hz and less than 60% discrimination scores. Eighty-seven subjects were enrolled in an adult Hybrid multicenter Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Immediate hearing preservation was accomplished in 85/87 subjects. Over time (3 months to 5 years), some hearing preservation was maintained in 91% of the group. Combined electric-acoustic processing enabled most of this group of volunteers to gain improved speech understanding, compared to their preoperative hearing, with bilateral hearing aids. Most have preservation of low-frequency acoustic hearing within 15 dB of their preoperative pure tone levels. Those with greater losses (>30 dB) also benefited from the combination of electric-acoustic speech processing. Postoperatively, in the electric-acoustic processing condition, loss of low-frequency hearing did not correlate with improvements in speech perception scores in quiet. Sixteen subjects were identified as poor performers in that they did not achieve a significant improvement through electric-acoustic processing. A multiple regression analysis determined that 91% of the variance in the poorly performing group can be explained by the preoperative speech recognition score and duration of deafness. Signal-to-noise ratios for speech understanding in noise improved more than 9 dB in some individuals in the electric-acoustic processing condition. The relation between speech understanding in noise thresholds and residual low-frequency acoustic hearing is significant (r = 0.62; p < 0.05). The data suggest that, in general, the advantages gained for speech recognition in noise by preserving residual hearing exist, unless the hearing loss approaches profound levels. Preservation of residual low-frequency hearing should be considered when expanding candidate selection criteria for standard cochlear implants. Duration of profound high-frequency hearing loss appears to be an important variable when determining selection criteria for the Hybrid implant.

Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to document speech perception and localization abilities in patients who use a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear. DESIGN: We surveyed a group of 111 cochlear implant patients and asked them whether they used a hearing aid on their unimplanted ear. The first three patients who were available were tested on word and sentence recognition and localization tasks. Speech stimuli were presented from the front in quiet and in noise. In the latter conditions, noise was either from the front, the right, or the left. Localization was tested with noise bursts presented at 45 degrees from the right or left. In addition we asked the patients about their abilities to integrate the information from both devices. RESULTS: Speech perception tests in quiet showed a binaural advantage for only one of the three patients for words and none for sentences. With speech and noise both in front of the patient, two patients performed better with both devices than with either device alone. With speech in front and noise on the hearing aid side, no binaural advantage was seen, but with noise on the cochlear implant side, one patient showed a binaural advantage. Localization ability improved with both devices for two patients. The third patient had above-chance localization ability with his implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: A cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear can provide binaural advantages. The patient who did not show a clear binaural advantage had the poorest hearing aid alone performance. The absolute and relative levels of performance at each ear are likely to influence the potential for binaural integration.

The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present psychophysical data for 40 Nucleus 24 Contour adult patients with 1 mo of device experience and speech perception results for a group of 56 adult patients with 3 mo experience using the Nucleus 24 Contour cochlear implant system. Postoperative hearing thresholds (i.e., under headphones) in the implanted ear were also assessed in a group of 85 patients who had measurable hearing preoperatively. This was of interest because preservation of residual hearing, postoperatively, is consistent with atraumatic insertion of the electrode array. In addition, data will be presented that reflected feedback from 40 surgeons who participated in the trial. DESIGN: Participants in this study were 18 yr of age or older, with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss with no congenital component. Preoperatively, they scored < or = 50% open-set sentence recognition (HINT sentences) in the ear to be implanted and < or = 60% in the best-aided condition. The investigation was a repeated-measures single-subject experiment and took place at 46 different North American clinical sites. Preoperative performance was compared with postoperative performance 3 mo after device activation. Clinicians were able to program patients' processors with one, two, or all three speech-processing strategies. Testing took place using the participant's preferred speech-processing strategy (SPEAK, CIS, or ACE). Preoperative unaided hearing thresholds were compared with unaided thresholds in the implanted ear measured 1 mo after device activation. Surgeons were canvassed regarding surgical use and design of the device via a questionnaire after having completed at least one Nucleus 24 Contour surgery. RESULTS: Average T- and C-levels for the Nucleus 24 Contour patients were considerably lower than those using the Nucleus 24 (CI24M). A total of 85 patients had measurable hearing preoperatively at two or more audiometric frequencies in the ear implanted. Of these patients 41 (48%) had measurable hearing at one or more frequencies and 32 (38%) had measurable hearing at two or more frequencies postoperatively. In general, surgeons found the Nucleus 24 Contour easy to insert and were pleased with the design features of the device. The downsized receiver/stimulator (of the Nucleus 24 Contour) required less drilling than the Nucleus 24, reducing surgical time, as well as making the Contour better suited for implantation in those with small skull sizes (e.g., small children and infants). After 3 mo of device use, mean open-set speech perception in quiet and in noise was significantly better than preoperative performance on all test measures. Patients using the ACE strategy had significantly better mean scores for all measures than patients using SPEAK. Only two patients preferred to use the CIS coding strategy. CONCLUSIONS The results presented in this article demonstrated that the design objectives of the Nucleus 24 Contour were met. Namely, results from this study, together with insertion studies, were consistent with perimodiolar placement using an implant design that the majority of surgeons found easy to insert with relatively minimal trauma. Reduced T- and C-levels were observed with Contour patients when compared with patients using the Nucleus 24 with the straight array, consistent with perimodiolar placement. A survey of surgeons participating in the clinical trial indicated easier, or equally easy, insertion of the Contour array, compared with previous Nucleus products as well as other manufacturers' devices, without the use of additional insertion tools or array positioners. Postoperatively, 46% of patients with preoperative residual hearing maintained some level of unaided hearing postoperatively, suggesting atraumatic insertion of the Nucleus 24 Contour electrode array. It is worth noting that all 216 patients implanted during this study had full insertions of their Contour electrode arrays. High levels of open-set speech perception in quiet and in noise were achieved and patients using the ACE strategy had significantly better mean scores for all measures than patients using SPEAK. Only two patients preferred to use the CIS coding strategy.

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.