Frequency-dependent loudness balancing in bimodal cochlear implant users. (2nd August 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Veugen, Lidwien C. E.; Chalupper, Josef; Snik, Ad F. M.; van Opstal, A. John; Mens, Lucas H. M.
• Is Part Of: Acta oto-laryngologica. Volume 136:Number 8(2016)
• Page Start: 775
• Page End: 781
• Publication Date: 2016-08-02
• Subjects: Bimodal stimulation -- cochlear implants -- hearing aids -- loudness balancing -- speech perception; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Ear -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Throat -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Electronic Resources; Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases; 617.8
• DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2016.1155233
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6489

Abstract

Abstract: Conclusion In users of a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) in contralateral ears, frequency-dependent loudness balancing between devices did, on average, not lead to improved speech understanding as compared to broadband balancing. However, nine out of 15 bimodal subjects showed significantly better speech understanding with either one of the fittings.Objectives Sub-optimal fittings and mismatches in loudness are possible explanations for the large individual differences seen in listeners using bimodal stimulation.Methods HA gain was adjusted for soft and loud input sounds in three frequency bands (0–548, 548–1000, and >1000 Hz) to match loudness with the CI. This procedure was compared to a simple broadband balancing procedure that reflected current clinical practice. In a three-visit cross-over design with 4 weeks between sessions, speech understanding was tested in quiet and in noise and questionnaires were administered to assess benefit in real world.Results Both procedures resulted in comparable HA gains. For speech in noise, a marginal bimodal benefit of 0.3 ± 4 dB was found, with large differences between subjects and spatial configurations. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise did not differ between the two loudness balancing procedures.