Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient

被引:34
|
作者
Gifford, Rene H. [1 ]
Dorman, Michael F. [2 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Hearing & Speech Sci, Nashville, TN 37232 USA
[2] Arizona State Univ, Dept Speech & Hearing Sci, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
来源
EAR AND HEARING | 2019年 / 40卷 / 03期
关键词
Bilateral cochlear implants; Bimodal hearing; Cochlear implants hearing aid; Evidence-based practice; Speech recognition; SOUND SOURCE LOCALIZATION; INTERAURAL LEVEL DIFFERENCES; SPEECH RECOGNITION; MUSIC PERCEPTION; TIME DIFFERENCES; ELECTRIC-STIMULATION; ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; BINAURAL BENEFITS; RESIDUAL HEARING; HEAD SHADOW;
D O I
10.1097/AUD.0000000000000657
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Objective: The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of various measures of speech understanding in distinguishing performance differences between adult bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to provide a preliminary evidence-based tool guiding clinical decisions regarding bilateral CI candidacy. Design: This study used a multiple-baseline, cross-sectional design investigating speech recognition performance for 85 experienced adult CI recipients (49 bimodal, 36 bilateral). Speech recognition was assessed in a standard clinical test environment with a single loudspeaker using the minimum speech test battery for adult CI recipients as well as with an R-SPACE (TM) 8-loudspeaker, sound-simulation system. All participants were tested in three listening conditions for each measure including each ear alone as well as in the bilateral/bimodal condition. In addition, we asked each bimodal listener to provide a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" Results: This study yielded three primary findings: (1) there were no significant differences between bimodal and bilateral CI performance or binaural summation on clinical measures of speech recognition, (2) an adaptive speech recognition task in the R-SPACE (TM) system revealed significant differences in performance and binaural summation between bimodal and bilateral CI users, with bilateral CI users achieving significantly better performance and greater summation, and (3) the patient's answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" held high sensitivity (100% hit rate) for identifying likely bilateral CI candidates and moderately high specificity (77% correct rejection rate) for correctly identifying listeners best suited with a bimodal hearing configuration. Conclusions: Clinics cannot rely on current clinical measures of speech understanding, with a single loudspeaker, to determine bilateral CI candidacy for adult bimodal listeners nor to accurately document bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal hearing configuration. Speech recognition in a complex listening environment, such as R-SPACE (TM), is a sensitive and appropriate measure for determining bilateral CI candidacy and also likely for documenting bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal configuration. In the absence of an available R-SPACE (TM) system, asking the patient whether or not s/he thinks s/he needs a second CI is a highly sensitive measure, which may prove clinically useful.
引用
收藏
页码:501 / 516
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Phonological acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese by bimodal bilingual hearing children and deaf children with cochlear implants
    Cruz, Carina Rebello
    Finger, Ingrid
    LETRAS DE HOJE-ESTUDOS E DEBATES EM LINGUISTICA LITERATURA E LINGUA PORTUGUESA, 2013, 48 (03): : 389 - 398
  • [42] Bilateral insertion of cochlear implants
    Hoth, S
    HNO, 2006, 54 (02) : 77 - 77
  • [43] Exploring the clinical approach to the bimodal fitting of hearing aids and cochlear implants: results of an international survey
    Scherf, Fanny W. A. C.
    Arnold, Laure P.
    ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA, 2014, 134 (11) : 1151 - 1157
  • [44] Bilateral cochlear implants in children
    Litovsky, R
    Johnstone, P
    Parkinson, A
    Peters, R
    Lake, J
    COCHLEAR IMPLANTS, 2004, 1273 : 451 - 454
  • [45] Advantages from bilateral hearing in speech perception in noise with simulated cochlear implants and residual acoustic hearing
    Schoof, Tim
    Green, Tim
    Faulkner, Andrew
    Rosen, Stuart
    JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2013, 133 (02): : 1017 - 1030
  • [46] Sound Localization and Speech Perception in Noise of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: Bimodal Fitting Versus Bilateral Cochlear Implants
    Choi, Ji Eun
    Moon, Il Joon
    Kim, Eun Yeon
    Park, Hee-Sung
    Kim, Byung Kil
    Chung, Won-Ho
    Cho, Yang-Sun
    Brown, Carolyn J.
    Hong, Sung Hwa
    EAR AND HEARING, 2017, 38 (04): : 426 - 440
  • [47] Spatial unmasking and binaural advantage for children with normal hearing, a cochlear implant and a hearing aid, and bilateral implants
    Mok, Mansze
    Galvin, Karyn L.
    Dowell, Richard C.
    Mckay, Colette M.
    AUDIOLOGY AND NEURO-OTOLOGY, 2007, 12 (05) : 295 - 306
  • [48] Spoken Language Skills in Children With Bilateral Hearing Aids or Bilateral Cochlear Implants at the Age of Three Years
    Valimaa, Taina T.
    Kunnari, Sari
    Aarnisalo, Antti A.
    Dietz, Aarno
    Hyvarinen, Antti
    Laitakari, Jaakko
    Mykkanen, Sari
    Rimmanen, Satu
    Salonen, Jaakko
    Sivonen, Ville
    Tennila, Tanja
    Tsupari, Teija
    Vikman, Sari
    Virokannas, Nonna
    Laukkanen-Nevala, Paivi
    Tolonen, Anna-Kaisa
    Tuohimaa, Krista
    Lopponen, Heikki
    EAR AND HEARING, 2022, 43 (01): : 220 - 233
  • [49] A meta-analysis to compare speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation
    Schafer, Erin C.
    Amlani, Amyn M.
    Paiva, Daniele
    Nozari, Ladan
    Verret, Sybil
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2011, 50 (12) : 871 - 880
  • [50] Experiments on Auditory-Visual Perception of Sentences by Users of Unilateral, Bimodal, and Bilateral Cochlear Implants
    Dorman, Michael F.
    Liss, Julie
    Wang, Shuai
    Berisha, Visar
    Ludwig, Cimarron
    Natale, Sarah Cook
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2016, 59 (06): : 1505 - 1519