BILATERAL AND BIMODAL BENEFITS AS A FUNCTION OF AGE FOR ADULTS FITTED WITH A COCHLEAR IMPLANT
 
More details
Hide details
1
Arizona State University
2
Vanderbilt University
3
University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Michael Dorman   

Michael F. Dorman, Ph.D., Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-0102. Telephone: +1 480 965 3345. Fax: +1 480 965 8516, e-mail: mdorman@asu.edu
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2012;2(4):37–39
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Both bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) and bimodal (electric plus contralateral acoustic) stimulation can provide better speech intelligibility than a single CI. In both cases patients need to combine information from two ears into a single percept. In this paper we ask whether the physiological and psychological processes associated with aging alter the ability of bilateral and bimodal CI patients to combine information across two ears in the service of speech understanding

Material:
The subjects were 61 adult, bilateral CI patients and 94 adult, bimodal patients. The test battery was composed of monosyllabic words presented in quiet and the AzBio sentences presented in quiet, at +10 and at +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

Methods:
The subjects were tested in standard audiometric sound booths. Speech and noise were always presented from a single speaker directly in front of the listener.

Results:
Age and bilateral or bimodal benefit were not significantly correlated for any test measure.

Conclusions:
Other factors being equal, both bilateral CIs and bimodal CIs can be recommended for elderly patients.

FUNDING
This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (USA) to authors Dorman (R01 DC 010821), Gifford (R01 DC009404), Spahr (R03 DC 011052), Zang (F32 DC010937), and Loiselle (F31 DC011684-02).
 
REFERENCES (9)
1.
Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J: Spatial hearing and speech intelligibility in bilateral cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 2009; 30(4): 419–31.
 
2.
Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA et al: Multicenter U.S. bilateral Med-El cochlear implantation study: Speech perception over the first year of use. Ear Hear, 2008; 29(1): 20–32.
 
3.
Shallop J, Arndt P, Turnacliff K: Expanded indications for cochlear implantation: Perceptual results in seven adults with residual hearing. J Speech-Lang Path & Applied Behavior Anal, 1992: 16: 141–48.
 
4.
Ching T, Incerti P, Hill M: Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear, 2004; 25: 9–21.
 
5.
Dorman M, Gifford R: Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Int J Audio, 2010; 49(12): 912–19.
 
6.
Gordon-Salant S, Frisina, R, Fay R, Popper A: The Aging Auditory System. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, 34; 2010.
 
7.
Pichora-Fuller M: Processing speed and timing in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. Int J Audiol, 2003; 42: S59–67.
 
8.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I: Revised CNC lists for auditory test. J Speech Hear Disord, 1962; 27: 62–70.
 
9.
Spahr A, Dorman M, Litvak L et al: Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear and Hearing, 2012; 33(1): 112–17.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X