Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 25(02): e235-e241
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712482
Original Research

Balancing the Loudness in Speech Processors and Contralateral Hearing Aids in Users of Unilateral Cochlear Implants

Ana Tereza Matos Magalhães 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Amanda Carvalho 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Robinson Koji Tsuji 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Ricardo Ferreira Bento 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Maria Valéria Schmidt Goffi-Gomez 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The use of cochlear implants and hearing aids (bimodal) has been growing with the expansion of the indication for them, and it is important to ensure protocols so that there is a balance of the loudness regarding the two devices.

Objective To evaluate if the limited complex sounds present in the frequency bands of the current devices enable the balance of the loudness in adult users of bimodal stimulation, and to analyze if speech recognition improves after balancing.

Methods A prospective cross-sectional study with convenience sampling. The sample was composed of 25 adults who had used either a cochlear implant for at least 6 months or a contralateral hearing aid, with a mean age of 46 years. The balancing of the loudness was performed in an acoustic room with the computer's sound box (0° azimuth at 70 dB SPL). The instrumental sounds were filtered through eight different frequency bands. The patients used both hearing devices and were asked if the sound was perceived to be louder in one of the ears or centrally. The speech test was evaluated with sentence silence (65 dB SPL) and/or noise signal ratio of 0 dB/+ 10 dB in free field at 0° azimuth, before and after balancing.

Results: Out of the 25 patients, 5 failed to achieve balance at every tested frequency, and 3 achieved balance at almost every frequency, except 8 kHz. There was a significant difference between the speech recognition test only in silence before and after balancing.

Conclusion: Most patients achieved sound equalization at all evaluated frequencies under the complex-sound protocol. Additionally, most patients experienced improved speech recognition after balancing.

Keywords

deafness - cochlear implants - hearing aids - adult - speech


Publication History

Received: 16 May 2019

Accepted: 28 March 2020

Article published online:
23 June 2020

© 2020. 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 commecial 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 Ministério da Saúde. Portaria n° 2.776, de 18 de dezembro de 2014 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2019 April 26]. Available from: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/gm/2014/prt2776_18_12_2014.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ching TY, Incerti P, Hill M, van Wanrooy E. An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices. Audiol Neurotol 2006; 11 (Suppl. 01) 6-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hamzavi J, Pok SM, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner WD. Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (02) 61-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
  • 5 Dooley GJ, Blamey PJ, Seligman PM. et al. Combined electrical and acoustical stimulation using a bimodal prosthesis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993; 119 (01) 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ching TY, 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 (05) 365-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Blamey PJ, Dooley GJ, Parisi ES, Clark GM. Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations. Hear Res 1996; 99 (1-2): 139-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Scherf FW, Arnold LP. ; Poster presentation at the 12th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Other Implantable Auditory Technologies, ESPO 2012, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, SFORL 2012, Paris, France. Exploring the clinical approach to the bimodal fitting of hearing aids and cochlear implants: results of an international survey. Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134 (11) 1151-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 Lima MCMP, Araujo AML, Araujo FCRS. Sistema Sonar: sons normalizados para avaliação audiológica. Carapicuíba: Pro Fono; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (01) 37-51
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. et al. The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Goffi-Gomez MVS, Guedes MC, Sant Anna SBG, Peralta CGO, Tsuji RK, Castilho AM. et al. Critérios de Seleção e Avaliação Médica e Audiológica dos Candidatos ao Implante Coclear: Protocolo HC-FMUSP. Arq Int Otorrinolaringol 2004; 8 (04) 303-313
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Costa MJ, Iorio MCM, Mangabeira-Albernaz PL. Reconhecimento de fala: desenvolvimento de uma lista de sentenças em português. Acta Awho. 1997; 16 (04) 164-173
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Devocht EM, George EL, Janssen AML, Stokroos RJ. Bimodal hearing aid retention after unilateral cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurotol 2015; 20 (06) 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Neuman AC, Svirsky MA. Effect of hearing aid bandwidth on speech recognition performance of listeners using a cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid (bimodal hearing). Ear Hear 2013; 34 (05) 553-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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
  • 18 Veugen LC, Chalupper J, Snik AF, Opstal AJ, Mens LH. Matching Automatic Gain Control Across Devices in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (03) 260-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar