Consonant Perception by Adults with Bimodal Fitting

ABSTRACT

Many adults who receive a cochlear implant in one ear have usable residual hearing in the opposite ear. The simultaneous use of a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) in the contralateral ear, or bimodal fitting, provides the recipient with potentially complementary information to the auditory system for speech perception, localization, and functional benefits in everyday life via two different modes of stimulation (acoustic and electric). This study investigated consonant perception in listeners who use bimodal fitting with the aim to identify the acoustic cues responsible for speech understanding when an HA is used together with a CI in comparison with the use of a CI alone. The results showed that on average, there was significant improvement in consonant recognition in quiet and in noise when adults wore CIs with HAs compared with CIs alone. Feature analysis of consonants was performed to directly examine what additional cues were provided by the HA to enhance consonant perception. This analysis showed that on average, there was a significant increase in reception of information about voicing in quiet conditions and about voicing and manner of articulation in noise. There was no difference in the transmission of information about place of articulation. The implications of these findings on rehabilitation of adults with unilateral CI are discussed.

KEYWORDS

Bimodal fitting - consonant perception

REFERENCES

• 1 Gifford R H, Dorman M F, Shallop J K, Sydlowski S A. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy.  Ear Hear. 2010;  31 (2) 186-194
• 2 Ching T YC, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review.  Trends Amplif. 2007;  11 (3) 161-192
• 3 Potts L G, Skinner M W, Litovsky R A, Strube M J, Kuk F. Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing).  J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;  20 (6) 353-373
• 4 Ching T YC, Incerti P V, Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.  Ear Hear. 2004;  25 (1) 9-21
• 5 Dunn C C, Tyler R S, Witt S A. Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;  48 (3) 668-680
• 6 Hamzavi J, Pok S M, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W D. Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear.  Int J Audiol. 2004;  43 (2) 61-65
• 7 Iwaki T, Matsushiro N, Mah S R et al. Comparison of speech perception between monaural and binaural hearing in cochlear implant patients.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;  124 (4) 358-362
• 8 Kong Y Y, Stickney G S, Zeng F G. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;  117 (3 Pt 1) 1351-1361
• 9 Luntz M, Shpak T, Weiss H. Binaural-bimodal hearing: concomitant use of a unilateral cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;  125 (8) 863-869
• 10 Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A et al. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;  125 (6) 596-606
• 11 Mok M, Grayden D, Dowell R C, Lawrence D. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006;  49 (2) 338-351
• 12 Ching T YC, 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 (5) 365-380
• 13 Ching T YC, Hill M, Dillon H, van Wanrooy E. Fitting and evaluating a hearing aid for recipients of a unilateral cochlear implant: the NAL approach. Part1.  Hear Rev. 2004;  11 (7) 14-22.
• 14 Qin M K, Oxenham A J. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;  119 (4) 2417-2426
• 15 Kong Y Y, Carlyon R P. Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;  121 (6) 3717-3727
• 16 Brown C A, Bacon S P. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone.  Ear Hear. 2009;  30 (5) 489-493
• 17 Zhang T, Dorman M F, Spahr A J. Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation.  Ear Hear. 2010;  31 (1) 63-69
• 18 Ching T YC. The evidence calls for making binaural-bimodal fittings routine.  Hear J. 2005;  58 (11) 32-41
• 19 Ching T YC, Incerti P, Hill M, van Wanrooy E. An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices.  Audiol Neurootol. 2006;  11 (Suppl 1) 6-11
• 20 Offeciers E, Morera C, Müller J, Huarte A, Shallop J, Cavallé L. International consensus on bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;  125 (9) 918-919
• 21 Dubno J R, Dirks D D. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense-Syllable Test. I. Test reliability.  J Speech Hear Res. 1982;  25 (1) 135-141
• 22 Kiefer J, von Ilberg C, Rupprecht V, Hubner-Egner J, Knecht R. Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2000;  109 (11) 1009-1020
• 23 Skinner M W, Holden L K, Whitford L A, Plant K L, Psarros C, Holden T A. Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults.  Ear Hear. 2002;  23 (3) 207-223
• 24 Välimaa T T, Määttä T K, Löppönen H J, Sorri M J. Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: consonants.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;  45 (5) 1055-1069
• 25 Loizou P C, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;  108 (2) 790-802
• 26 Henshall K R, McKay C M. Optimizing electrode and filter selection in cochlear implant speech processor maps.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;  12 (9) 478-489
• 27 Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 (3) 412-423
• 28 Teoh S W, Neuburger H S, Svirsky M A. Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear implant users.  Audiol Neurootol. 2003;  8 269-285
• 29 Dooley G J, Blamey P J, Seligman P M et al. Combined electrical and acoustical stimulation using a bimodal prosthesis.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993;  119 (1) 55-60
• 30 Ching T YC, Psarros C, Hill M. Hearing aid benefit for children who switched from the SPEAK to the ACE Strategy in their contralateral Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System.  Aust N Z J Audiol. 2000;  22 (2) 123-132
• 31 Dillon H. NAL-NL1: a new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids.  Hear J. 1999;  52 (4) 10-16
• 32 Dillon H. In: Hearing Aids. New York, NY: Thieme; 2001: 383-385
• 33 Cox R M, DeChicchis A R, Wark D J. Demonstration of binaural advantage in audiometric test rooms.  Ear Hear. 1981;  2 (5) 194-201
• 34 Studebaker G A. A “rationalized” arcsine transform.  J Speech Hear Res. 1985;  28 (3) 455-462
• 35 Miller G, Nicely P. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1955;  27 (2) 338-352
• 36 Wang M. SINFA: Multivariate analysis for confusion matrices.  Behav Res Meth Instrum. 1976;  8 471-472
• 37 van Dijk J E, van Olphen A F, Langereis M C, Mens L H, Brokx J P, Smoorenburg G F. Predictors of cochlear implant performance.  Audiology. 1999;  38 (2) 109-116
• 38 Dorman M F, Loizou P C, Rainey D. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;  102 (4) 2403-2411
• 39 Loizou P C, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;  108 (2) 790-802
• 40 Shannon R V, Zeng F G, Wygonski J. Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;  104 (4) 2467-2476
• 41 Carlyon R P, Deeks J M. The upper limit of temporal pitch for cochlear-implant listeners: stimulus duration, conditioner pulses, and the number of electrodes stimulated.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;  127 (3) 1469-1478
• 42 Boothroyd A. Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss .  J Speech Hear Res. 1984;  27 134-144
• 43 Pedley K, Lind C, Hunt P. Adult Aural Rehabilitation Manual. Cochlear Ltd. N30975f ISS1 (Part no Z60413) 2005
• 44 Perreau A E, Tyler R S, Witt S, Dunn C. Selection strategies for binaural and monaural cochlear implantation.  Am J Audiol. 2007;  16 (2) 85-93
• 45 Cowan R, Chin-Lenn J. Pattern and prevalence of hearing aid use post-implantation in adult cochlear implant users.  Aust N Z J Audiol. 2004;  26 (Suppl) 48
• 46 Fitzpatrick E M, Séguin C, Schramm D, Chenier J, Armstrong S. Users' experience of a cochlear implant combined with a hearing aid.  Int J Audiol. 2009;  48 (4) 172-182