Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2023; 27(04): e645-e653
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1761169
Original Research

Benefits of Bimodal Stimulation to Speech Perception in Noise and Silence

Rayssa Pacheco Brito Dourado 
1   Health Sciences Postgraduate Program in Ciências da Saúde, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Fernanda Ferreira Caldas 
2   Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil
,
Carolina Costa Cardoso 
3   Brasiliense Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, IBORL, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Danielle Cristovão dos Santos 
4   Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade de Brasília, Brasilia, DF, Brazil
5   Centro de Reabilitação da Audição e Fala, Instituto Brasiliense de Otorrino, Asa Norte, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Fayez Bahmad  Jr
6   Health Science School, Universidade de Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Understanding all the benefits of bimodality with self-assessment questionnaires on the effect of hearing on quality of life is still necessary.

Objective To present whether bimodality still offers hearing benefits to the population who uses acoustic stimulation associated with electrical stimulation.

Methods The present study included 13 participants aged between 16 and 80 years old who were users of cochlear implants from Cochlear Corporation and hearing aids. All patients underwent the Hearing in Noise Test, and their visual analog scale score was obtained. Four-tone means were collected, and the participants answered the Speech, Spatial and Hearing Qualities questionnaire.

Results Bimodal users had an average sentence recognition rate of 76.0% in silence and 67.6% in fixed noise, and the signal-to-noise ratio in adaptive noise was +2.89dB. In addition, a lower level of difficulty was observed in the test using the visual analog scale. The domain with the highest average was auditory qualities (6.50), followed by spatial hearing (6.26) and hearing for speech (5.81). Individuals with an average between 50 and 70 dB of hearing level showed better sentence recognition in silence and noise.

Conclusion Bimodal stimulation showed benefits for users with different degrees of hearing loss; however, individuals who presented greater hearing residue had better performance in speech recognition with noise and in silence in addition to a good perception of hearing quality.

Keywords

cochlear implant - hearing aids - hearing loss - speech perception


Publication History

Received: 25 July 2022

Accepted: 26 September 2022

Article published online:
26 September 2023

© 2023. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Edwards B. The distortion of auditory perception by sensorineural hearing impairment [Internet]. Houston: Audiology Online; 2020. Acessed on 02/12/2022. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Generoso GF, Magalhães ATM, Goffi -Gomez MVS, Tsuji RK, Bento RF. Self-reported perception of unilateral cochlear implants on the contralateral use of hearing aid. Disorder Communication. 2019; 31 (03) 369-379
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Vroegop JL, Goedegebure A, van der Schroeff MP. How to Optimally Fit a Hearing Aid for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (06) 1039-1045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Holder JT, Reynolds SM, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH. Current profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant evaluation. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518755288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kong YY, Stickney GS, Zeng FG. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117 (3 Pt 1): 1351-1361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gfeller KE, Olszewski C, Turner C, Gantz B, Oleson J. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiol Neurotol 2006; 11 (Suppl. 01) 12-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ching TY, Incerti P, Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (01) 9-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, Kliethermes S, Driscoll V. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients in speech reception in the presence of background music. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2012; 121 (12) 782-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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 (03) 412-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Arieta MA. HINT Brasil speech perception test in normal-hearing and hearing aid users: attention to hearing health [dissertation]. Campinas: Postgraduate Program in Public Health. Faculty of Medical Sciences of the State University of Campinas; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Arieta AM, Couto CM, Costa EA. HINT Brazil speech perception test in groups of subjects exposed and not exposed to occupational noise. Rev. CEFAC. Ago 2013; 15 (04) 786-794
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 1990; 13 (04) 227-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Noble W, Jensen NS, Naylor G, Bhullar N, Akeroyd MA. A short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale suitable for clinical use: the SSQ12. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (06) 409-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO). Prevention of blindness and deafness. 2020. Accessed on 05/28/2020. Available at: http://www.who.int/publications-detail/basic-ear-and-hearing-care-resource
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Crew JD, Galvin III JJ, Landsberger DM, Fu QJ. Contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to bimodal speech and music perception. PLoS One 2015; 10 (03) e0120279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brown CA, Bacon SP. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (05) 489-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dorman MF, Gifford RH, Spahr AJ, McKarns SA. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol Neurotol 2008; 13 (02) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gifford RH, Dorman MF. Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (03) 501-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Neuman AC, Waltzman SB, Shapiro WH, Neukam JD, Zeman AM, Svirsky MA. Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216517699530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Sheffield SW, Teece K, Olund AP. Availability of binaural cues for bilateral implant recipients and bimodal listeners with and without preserved hearing in the implanted ear. Audiol Neurotol 2014; 19 (01) 57-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Liu YW, Tao DD, Chen B. et al. Factors Affecting Bimodal Benefit in Pediatric Mandarin-Speaking Chinese Cochlear Implant Users. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (06) 1316-1327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Luo X, Chang YP, Lin CY, Chang RY. Contribution of bimodal hearing to lexical tone normalization in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2014; 312: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yang HI, Zeng FG. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (sup2): S17-S22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zhou Q, Bi J, Song H, Gu X, Liu B. Mandarin lexical tone recognition in bimodal cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (07) 548-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kessler DM, Wolfe J, Blanchard M, Gifford RH. Clinical Application of Spectral Modulation Detection: Speech Recognition Benefit for Combining a Cochlear Implant and Contralateral Hearing Aid. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2020; 63 (05) 1561-1571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Illg A, Bojanowicz M, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T, Büchner A. Evaluation of the bimodal benefit in a large cohort of cochlear implant subjects using a contralateral hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (09) e240-e244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Witt 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 (03) 668-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sheffield SW, Gifford RH. The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth. Audiol Neurotol 2014; 19 (03) 151-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Holden LK, Dwyer NY. Asymmetric Hearing Study Team. Results in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients With Varied Asymmetric Hearing: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Speech Recognition, Localization, and Participant Report. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (05) 845-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Banhara MR, Nascimento LT, Costa OA, Bevilacqua MC. Combined use of cochlear implant and sound amplification device individual in adults. Distúrb Comun 2004; 16 (01) 27-33
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Nobre RA, Bevilacqua MC, Nascimento LT. Combined use of cochlear implant and individual sound amplification device in children. Distúrb Comun, São Paulo 2009; 21 (02) 229-238
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Dorman MF, Cook S, Spahr A. et al. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant. Hear Res 2015; 322: 107-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kelsall D, Lupo J, Biever A. Longitudinal outcomes of cochlear implantation and bimodal hearing in a large group of adults: A multicenter clinical study. Am J Otolaryngol 2021; 42 (01) 102773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bräcker T, Opie J, Nopp P, Anderson I. Introducing real-life listening features into the clinical test environment: Part I: Measuring the hearing performance and evaluating the listening effort of individuals with normal hearing. Cochlear Implants Int 2019; 20 (03) 138-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lee JY, Lee JT, Heo HJ, Choi CH, Choi SH, Lee K. Speech Recognition in Real-Life Background Noise by Young and Middle-Aged Adults with Normal Hearing. J Audiol Otol 2015; 19 (01) 39-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sucher CM, McDermott HJ. Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants Int 2009; 10 (Suppl. 01) 96-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Potts LG, Skinner MW, Litovsky RA, Strube MJ, 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 (06) 353-373
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Devocht EMJ, Janssen AML, Chalupper J, Stokroos RJ, George ELJ. The benefits of bimodal aiding on extended dimensions of speech perception: intelligibility, listening effort, and sound quality. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216517727900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gifford RH, Sunderhaus L, Sheffield S. Bimodal hearing with pediatric cochlear implant recipients: effect of acoustic bandwidth. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42 (10S): S19-S25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 D'Onofrio KL, Gifford RH. Bimodal benefit for music perception: effect of acoustic bandwidth. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2021; 64 (04) 1341-1353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Zhang T, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. 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 (01) 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lenarz T, Muller L, Czerniejewska-Wolska H. et al. Patient-related benefits for adults with cochlear implantation: a multicultural longitudinal observational study. Audiol Neurotol 2017; 22 (02) 61-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Holder JT, Holcomb MA, Snapp H. et al. Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults Using Bimodal Hearing Configurations. Otol Neurotol 2022; 2 (02) e011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Blamey PJ, Maat B, Başkent D. et al. A retrospective multicenter study comparing speech perception outcomes for bilateral implantation and bimodal rehabilitation. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (04) 408-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Zhang T, Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Saoji A. Relationship between auditory function of nonimplanted ears and bimodal benefit. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (02) 133-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar