Original Report

Comparison of Speech Performance in Bimodal versus Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Joshua J. Sturm MD, PhD

orcid.org/0000-0002-4606-5665

Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Department of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

Megan Kuhlmey AuD,

Megan Kuhlmey AuD

Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

George Alexiades MD,

George Alexiades MD

Department of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

Ronald Hoffman MD,

Ronald Hoffman MD

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

Ana H. Kim MD,

Corresponding Author

Ana H. Kim MD

[email protected]

Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Send correspondence to Ana H. Kim, MD, Division of Otology, Neurotology and Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 10032, New York, NY. E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Joshua J. Sturm MD, PhD,

Joshua J. Sturm MD, PhD

orcid.org/0000-0002-4606-5665

Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Department of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

Megan Kuhlmey AuD,

Megan Kuhlmey AuD

Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

George Alexiades MD,

George Alexiades MD

Department of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

Ronald Hoffman MD,

Ronald Hoffman MD

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

Ana H. Kim MD,

Corresponding Author

Ana H. Kim MD

[email protected]

Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 02 September 2020

https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29062

Citations: 7

Editor's Note: This Manuscript was accepted for publication on August 10, 2020.

A.H.K receives research funding from Advanced Bionics. No funding was received for this research. M.K. is on the advisory board for MedEl. No funding was received for this research.

The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Objective

To assess whether listening with two cochlear implants (bilateral) offers significant benefits in terms of speech perception over listening with one cochlear implant and one hearing aid (bimodal).

Methods

Retrospective review of bilateral cochlear implant recipients (24 pediatric and 26 adult). Bimodal listening was compared to bilateral listening in terms of speech perception performance at 1-year post second implant under three listening conditions: 50 dBHL, 35 dBHL, and 50 dBHL+5 SNR. Changes in speech performance from bimodal (before second implant) to bilateral (after second implant) listening were determined within subjects and compared to a separate control group of bimodal users matched for age of first implantation who never received a second implant (10 pediatric and 20 adult).

Results

In the pediatric group, compared to bimodal listening prior to a second implant, speech perception scores with bilateral implants increased significantly when measured at 50 dBHL, 35 dBHL, and 50 dBHL+5 SNR. By contrast, pediatric bimodal controls who never received a second implant failed to demonstrate similar improvement over 1 year's time. In the adult group, compared to bimodal listening prior to a second implant, speech perception scores with bilateral implants increased when measured at 50 dBHL, but were not significantly different at 35 dBHL and 50 dBHL + 5 SNR. Adult bimodal controls who never received a second implant failed to demonstrate significant improvement in all conditions over 1 year's time.

Conclusion

Bilateral listening with two cochlear implants improved speech perception performance relative to bimodal listening in the pediatric population. Improvement in the adult population was not as significant.

Level of Evidence

4, Retrospective Chart Review. Laryngoscope, 131:E1322–E1327, 2021

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1Green JD Jr, Mills DM, Bell BA, Luxford WM, Tonokawa LL. Binaural cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1992; 13: 502–506.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Armstrong M, Pegg P, James C, Blamey P. Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. Am J Otol 1997; 18: S140–S141.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Ching TYC, Psarros C, Hill M, Dillon H, Incerti P. Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear? Ear Hear 2001; 22: 365–380.
10.1097/00003446-200110000-00002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Ching TYC, Incerti P, Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 9–21.
10.1097/01.AUD.0000111261.84611.C8
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Iwaki T, Matsushiro N, Mah S, et al. Comparison of speech perception between monaural and binaural hearing in cochlear implant patients. Acta Otolaryngologica 2004; 124: 358–362.
10.1080/00016480310000548
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Kühn-Inacker H, Shehata-Dieler W, Müller J, Helms J. Bilateral cochlear implants: a way to optimize auditory perception abilities in deaf children? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2004; 68: 1257–1266.
10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.04.029
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Wilt SA. Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48: 668–680.
10.1044/1092-4388(2005/046)
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Ramsden R, Greenham P, O'Driscoll M, et al. Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26: 988–998.
10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Cullington HE, Zeng FG. Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification. Ear Hear 2011; 32: 16–30.
10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181edfbd2
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Skinner MW. Restroing hearing symmetry with two cochlear implants or one cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid. J Rehab Res Dev 2008; 45: 749–768.
10.1682/JRRD.2007.08.0120
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Schafer EC, Amlani AM, Seibold A, Shattuck PL. A meta-analytic comparison of binaural benefits between bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 760–776.
10.3766/jaaa.18.9.5
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Mok M, Galvin KL, Dowell RC, McKay CM. Speech perception benefit for children with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears and children with bilateral cochlear mplants. Audiol Neurotol 2010; 15: 44–56.
10.1159/000219487
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Gifford RH, Driscoll CL, Davis TJ, Fiebig P, Micco A, Dorman MFA. within-subject comparison of bimodal hearing, bilateral cochlear implantation, and bilateral hearing preservation: high-performing patients. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36: 1131–1137.
10.1097/MAO.0000000000000804
Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Gifford RH, Dorman MF. Bimodal hearing or bilateral cochlear implants? Ask the Patient. Ear Hear 2018; 40: 501–516.
10.1097/AUD.0000000000000657
Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Steffens T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Strutz J, et al. The benefits of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation for hearing-impaired children. Acta Otolaryngol 2008; 128: 164–176.
10.1080/00016480701411528
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Peters BR, Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Lake J. Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28: 649–657.
10.1097/01.mao.0000281807.89938.60
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Wolfe J, Baker S, Caraway T, et al. 1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28: 589–596.
10.1097/MAO.0b013e318067bd24
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Acaroli J, et al. Bilateral cochlear implants in adults and children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130: 648–655.
10.1001/archotol.130.5.648
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Waltzman SB, Roland JT Jr, Cohen NL. Delayed implantation in congenitally deaf children and adults. Otol Neurotol 2002; 23: 333–340.
10.1097/00129492-200205000-00018
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24: 582–589.
10.1097/00129492-200307000-00009
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116: 1235–1246.
10.1016/j.clinph.2005.02.011
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Ruffin CV, Tyler RS, Witt SA, Dunn CC, Gantz BJ, Rubinstein JT. Long-term performance of clarion 1.0 cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope 2007; 117: 1183–1190.
10.1097/MLG.0b013e318058191a
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Artières F, Vieu A, Mondain M, Uziel A, Venail F. Impact of early cochlear implantation on the linguistic development of the deaf child. Otol Neurotol 2009; 30: 736–742.
10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181b2367b
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Ching TYC, van E W, Dillon H. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review. Trends Amplif 2007; 11: 161–192.
10.1177/1084713807304357
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
25Litovsky RY, Johnstone PM, Godar SP. Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants and/or hearing aids in children. Inter J Audiol 2006; 45: S78–S91.
10.1080/14992020600782956
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Ching TY, Massie R, van Wanrooy E, Rushbrooke E, Psarros C. Bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation? Cochlear Implants Inter 2009; 10: 23–27.
10.1002/cii.381
PubMed Google Scholar
27Lammers MJ, van der Heijden GJ, Pourier VE, Grolman W. Bilateral cochlear implantation in children: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Laryngoscope 2014; 124: 1694–1699.
10.1002/lary.24582
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Haskins H. A phonetically balanced test of speech discrimination for children. Unpublished Master Thesis 1949; Northwestern University, Evanston, Il.
Google Scholar
29Elliot L, Katz D. Development of a New Children's Test of Speech Discrimination. St. Louis, MO: Auditec; 1980.
Google Scholar
30Tillman TW, Carhart, R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test no. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. Tech Rep SAM-TR 1966;1–12.
Google Scholar
31Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62–70.
10.1044/jshd.2701.62
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32Litovsky RY, inventor; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, assignee. Method and system for rapid and reliable testing of speech intelligibility in children. US patent 6 584 440 B2. June 24, 2003.
Google Scholar
33Miyamoto RT, Osberger MJ, Todd SL, et al. Variables affecting implant performance in children. Laryngoscope 1994; 104: 1120–1124.
10.1288/00005537-199409000-00012
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34Van Hoesel RJM, Tyler RS. Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 113: 1617–1630.
10.1121/1.1539520
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35Litovsky RY, Johnstone PM, Godar S, et al. Bilateral cochlear implants in children: localization acuity measured with minimum audible angle. Ear Hear 2006; 27: 43–59.
10.1097/01.aud.0000194515.28023.4b
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36Beijen JW, Snik AF, Mylanus EA. Sound localization ability of young children with bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28: 479–485.
10.1097/MAO.0b013e3180430179
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37Tyler RS, Perreau AE, Ji H. Validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire. Ear Hear 2009; 30: 466–474.
10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61efe
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume131, Issue4

April 2021

Pages E1322-E1327

Comparison of Speech Performance in Bimodal versus Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of Evidence

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Comparison of Speech Performance in Bimodal versus Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of Evidence

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information