Bilateral cochlear implants in adults and children.

OBJECTIVE To measure the benefit (ie, sound localization and speech intelligibility in noise) of bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) in adults and in children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Seventeen adults and 3 children underwent testing 3 months after activation of bilateral hearing. Adults received their devices in a simultaneous procedure and children in sequential procedures (3-8 years apart). Adults underwent testing of sound localization and speech intelligibility, with a single CI and bilaterally. Children underwent testing of sound localization, right/left discrimination, and speech intelligibility, with the first CI alone and bilaterally. We used computer games to attract the children's attention and engage them in the psychophysical tasks for long periods of time. RESULTS Preliminary findings suggest that, for adults, bilateral hearing leads to better performance on the localization task, and on the speech task when the noise is near the poorer of the 2 ears. In children, localization and discrimination are slightly better under bilateral conditions, but not remarkably so. On the speech tasks, 1 child did not benefit from bilateral hearing. Two children showed consistent improvement with bilateral hearing when the noise was near the side that underwent implantation first. CONCLUSIONS Bilateral CIs may offer advantages to some listeners. The tasks described in this study might offer a powerful tool for measuring such advantages, especially in young children. The extent of the advantage, however, is difficult to ascertain after 3 months of bilateral listening experience, and might require a more prolonged period of adjustment and learning. Future work should be aimed at examining these issues.

[1]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Lisa Davidson,et al.  Factors Associated with Development of Speech Perception Skills in Children Implanted by Age Five , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[3]  T. Nikolopoulos,et al.  Using SNAP Dragons to monitor narrative abilities in young deaf children following cochlear implantation. , 2003, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[4]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  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.

[6]  G M Clark,et al.  Fusion and lateralization study with two binaural cochlear implant patients. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[7]  Derek M. Houston,et al.  Language Development in Deaf Infants Following Cochlear Implantation , 2003, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[9]  J. Rauschecker,et al.  Sending Sound to the Brain , 2002, Science.

[10]  R. Tyler,et al.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Speech in Noise by Cochlear Implant Patients and Normal‐Hearing Listeners Using 6‐Channel Signal Processors , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[12]  S Hellman,et al.  Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[13]  J K Shallop,et al.  Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[14]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

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

[16]  J. Blauert Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization , 1983 .

[17]  Felix Wichmann,et al.  The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  D T Lawson,et al.  Bilateral cochlear implants controlled by a single speech processor. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

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

[20]  J. Müller,et al.  Speech Understanding in Quiet and Noise in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant System , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[21]  Richard S. Tyler,et al.  Patients Utilizing a Hearing Aid and a Cochlear Implant: Speech Perception and Localization , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[22]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[23]  T. Ching,et al.  Should Children Who Use Cochlear Implants Wear Hearing Aids in the Opposite Ear? , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[24]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Binaural Cochlear Implants Placed during the Same Operation , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[25]  A. Geers Predictors of Reading Skill Development in Children with Early Cochlear Implantation , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[26]  C James,et al.  Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[27]  H S Colburn,et al.  Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  F G Zeng,et al.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. , 1999, Ear and hearing.