Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid: Objective Measures of Binaural Benefit

• Published in: Frontiers in neuroscience 2020-12, Vol.14, p.586119-586119
• Main Authors: Balkenhol, Tobias, Wallhäusser-Franke, Elisabeth, Rotter, Nicole, Servais, Jérôme J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Auditory evoked potentials; Cochlea; cochlear implant; Ear; Ears & hearing; electroencephalography; hearing aid; Hearing loss; Latency; Listening; Localization; Neuroscience; Noise; Patients; source localization; Speech; Speech recognition; Surgery; Transplants & implants; Voice recognition
• ISSN: 1662-4548; 1662-453X; 1662-453X
• DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.586119

Cochlear implants (CI) improve hearing for the severely hearing impaired. With an extension of implantation candidacy, today many CI listeners use a hearing aid on their contralateral ear, referred to as bimodal listening. It is uncertain, however, whether the brains of bimodal listeners can combine the electrical and acoustical sound information and how much CI experience is needed to achieve an improved performance with bimodal listening. Patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss undergoing implant surgery were tested in their ability to understand speech in quiet and in noise, before and again 3 and 6 months after provision of a CI. Results of these bimodal listeners were compared to age-matched, normal hearing controls (NH). The benefit of adding a contralateral hearing aid was calculated in terms of head shadow, binaural summation, binaural squelch, and spatial release from masking from the results of a sentence recognition test. Beyond that, bimodal benefit was estimated from the difference in amplitudes and latencies of the N1, P2, and N2 potentials of the brains' auditory evoked response (AEP) toward speech. Data of fifteen participants contributed to the results. CI provision resulted in significant improvement of speech recognition with the CI ear, and in taking advantage of the head shadow effect for understanding speech in noise. Some amount of binaural processing was suggested by a positive binaural summation effect 6 month post-implantation that correlated significantly with symmetry of pure tone thresholds. Moreover, a significant negative correlation existed between binaural summation and latency of the P2 potential. With CI experience, morphology of the N1 and P2 potentials in the AEP response approximated that of NH, whereas, N2 remained different. Significant AEP differences between monaural and binaural processing were shown for NH and for bimodal listeners 6 month post-implantation. Although the grand-averaged difference in N1 amplitude between monaural and binaural listening was similar for NH and the bimodal group, source localization showed group-dependent differences in auditory and speech-relevant cortex, suggesting different processing in the bimodal listeners.