Spectral and Temporal Measures in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users: On the Mechanism of Electroacoustic Hearing Benefits

Objective Compare auditory performance of Hybrid and standard cochlear implant users with psychoacoustic measures of spectral and temporal sensitivity and correlate with measures of clinical benefit. Study Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Patients Hybrid cochlear implant users between 12 and 33 months after implantation. Hybrid recipients had preservation of low-frequency hearing. Interventions Administration of psychoacoustic, music perception, and speech reception in noise tests. Main Outcome Measures Performance on spectral-ripple discrimination, temporal modulation detection, Schroeder-phase discrimination, Clinical Assessment of Music Perception, and speech reception in steady-state noise tests. Results Clinical Assessment of Music Perception pitch performance at 262 Hz was significantly better in Hybrid users compared with standard implant controls. There was a near significant difference on speech reception in steady-state noise. Surprisingly, neither Schroeder-phase discrimination at 2 frequencies nor temporal modulation detection thresholds across a range of frequencies revealed any advantage in Hybrid users. This contrasts with spectral-ripple measures that were significantly better in the Hybrid group. The spectral-ripple advantage was preserved even when using only residual hearing. Conclusion These preliminary data confirm existing data demonstrating that residual low-frequency acoustic hearing is advantageous for pitch perception. Results also suggest that clinical benefits enjoyed by Hybrid recipients are due to improved spectral discrimination provided by the residual hearing. No evidence indicated that residual hearing provided temporal information beyond that provided by electric stimulation.

[1]  J. Rubinstein,et al.  Psychoacoustic Abilities Associated With Music Perception in Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Acoustic plus Electric Speech Processing: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter Clinical Trial of the Iowa/Nucleus Hybrid Implant , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[3]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Jacob Oleson,et al.  Music Perception with Cochlear Implants and Residual Hearing , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[6]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.

[7]  Jay T Rubinstein,et al.  How cochlear implants encode speech , 2004, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery.

[8]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[9]  Jay T. Rubinstein,et al.  Discrimination of Schroeder-Phase Harmonic Complexes by Normal-Hearing and Cochlear-Implant Listeners , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[10]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Information From the Voice Fundamental Frequency (F0) Region Accounts for the Majority of the Benefit When Acoustic Stimulation Is Added to Electric Stimulation , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Development and Validation of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception Test , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Marjorie R. Leek,et al.  Discrimination of Time-Reversed Harmonic Complexes by Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[14]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[17]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[18]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Impact of Hair Cell Preservation in Cochlear Implantation: Combined Electric and Acoustic Hearing , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[19]  N. Viemeister,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[20]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[21]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. , 2003, The Laryngoscope.