Speech Understanding in Quiet and Noise in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant System

Objective The purpose of the study was to investigate speech understanding in quiet and noise in subjects bilaterally implanted with multi-channel cochlear implants. Design Nine adults bilaterally implanted with MED-EL implants were included in the study. The subjects were tested in three conditions: with both implants, with the right implant only, and with the left implant only. Speech tests included monosyllables in quiet and sentences in noise (10 dB signal to noise ratio). Speech was presented from the front, and noise was presented from either 90° or 270° azimuth. Results All subjects reported benefit from bilateral stimulation. Speech scores for all subjects were higher with bilateral than with unilateral stimulation. The average score across subjects for sentence understanding was 31.1 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants compared with the cochlear implant ipsilateral to the noise, and 10.7 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants compared with the cochlear implant contralateral to the noise. The average score for recognition of monosyllabic words was 18.7 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants than with one cochlear implant. All of these differences in average scores were significant at the 5% level. Conclusions Bilateral cochlear implantation provides a significant benefit in speech understanding in both quiet and noise.

[1]  S Pijl.  Single-channel versus bilateral multichannel cochlear implant results: a case report. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[2]  W Baumgartner,et al.  Evaluation of performance with the COMBI40 cochlear implant in adults: a multicentric clinical study. , 1997, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[3]  G. Clark,et al.  Psychophysical and speech perception studies: a case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[5]  H. Hildmann,et al.  Comparison of the TEMPO+ Ear-Level Speech Processor and the CIS PRO+ Body-Worn Processor in Adult MED-EL Cochlear Implant Users , 2001, ORL.

[6]  T Ricketts,et al.  Impact of Compression and Hearing Aid Style on Directional Hearing Aid Benefit and Performance , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[7]  W M Luxford,et al.  Binaural cochlear implants. , 1992, The American journal of otology.

[8]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  R R Coles,et al.  Binaural advantages in hearing of speech , 1971, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[10]  D Byrne,et al.  Clinical Issues and Options in Binaural Hearing Aid Fitting , 1981, Ear and hearing.

[11]  D. Byrne,et al.  Effects of long-term bilateral and unilateral fitting of different hearing aid types on the ability to locate sounds. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[12]  P J Blamey,et al.  Monaural and Binaural Loudness Measures in Cochlear Implant Users with Contralateral Residual Hearing , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[13]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[14]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Speech results with a bilateral multi-channel cochlear implant subject for spatially separated signal and noise , 1999 .

[15]  G M Clark,et al.  Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Binaural Summation of Loudness , 1960 .

[17]  T Balkany,et al.  Binaural cochlear implantation: Comparison of 3m/house and nucleus 22 devices with evidence of sensory integration , 1988, The Laryngoscope.