Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(03): 180-185
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722982
Research Article

Benefits of Bilateral Hearing on the Telephone for Cochlear Implant Recipients

Sharon Miller
1   Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
,
Jace Wolfe
2   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Mila Duke
2   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Erin Schafer
1   Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
,
Smita Agrawal
3   Clinical Research Department, Advanced Bionics LLC, Valencia, California
,
Dawn Koch
3   Clinical Research Department, Advanced Bionics LLC, Valencia, California
,
Sara Neumann
2   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was partially funded by a grant from Advanced Bionics, LLC.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Cochlear implant (CI) recipients frequently experience difficulty understanding speech over the telephone and rely on hearing assistive technology (HAT) to improve performance. Bilateral inter-processor audio streaming technology using nearfield magnetic induction is an advanced technology incorporated within a hearing aid or CI processor that can deliver telephone audio signals captured at one sound processor to the sound processor at the opposite ear. To date, limited data exist examining the efficacy of this technology in CI users to improve speech understanding on the telephone.

Purpose The primary objective of this study was to examine telephone speech recognition outcomes in bilateral CI recipients in a bilateral inter-processor audio streaming condition (DuoPhone) compared with a monaural condition (i.e., telephone listening with one sound processor) in quiet and in background noise. Outcomes in the monaural and bilateral conditions using either a telecoil or T-Mic2 technology were also assessed. The secondary aim was to examine how deactivating microphone input in the contralateral processor in the bilateral wireless streaming conditions, and thereby modifying the signal-to-noise ratio, affected speech recognition in noise.

Research Design A repeated-measures design was used to evaluate speech recognition performance in quiet and competing noise with the telephone signal transmitted acoustically or via the telecoil to the ipsilateral sound processor microphone in monaural and bilateral wireless streaming listening conditions.

Study Sample Nine bilateral CI users with Advanced Bionics HiRes 90K and/or CII devices were included in the study.

Data Collection and Analysis The effects of phone input (monaural [DuoPhone Off] vs. bilateral [DuoPhone on]) and processor input (T-Mic2 vs. telecoil) on word recognition in quiet and noise were assessed using separate repeated-measures analysis of variance. Effect of the contralateral device mic deactivation on speech recognition outcomes for the T-Mic2 DuoPhone conditions was assessed using paired Student's t-tests.

Results Telephone speech recognition was significantly better in the bilateral inter-processor streaming conditions relative to the monaural conditions in both quiet and noise. Speech recognition outcomes were similar in quiet and noise when using the T-Mic2 and telecoil in the monaural and bilateral conditions. For the acoustic DuoPhone conditions using the T-Mic2, speech recognition in noise was significantly better when the microphone of the contralateral processor was disabled.

Conclusion Inter-processor audio streaming allows for bilateral listening on the telephone and produces better speech recognition in quiet and in noise compared with monaural listening conditions for adult CI recipients.

Keywords

speech recognition - cochlear implant - noise - telephone


Publication History

Received: 04 May 2020

Accepted: 13 September 2020

Article published online:
19 April 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurotol 2008; 13 (03) 193-205
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Wilson BS, Dorman MF. Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res 2008; 242 (1-2): 3-21
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Anderson I, Baumgartner WD, Böheim K, Nahler A, Arnoldner C, D'Haese P. Telephone use: what benefit do cochlear implant users receive?. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (08) 446-453
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Facer GW, Peterson A, Brey RH. et al. The Mayo Clinic experience with the cochlear implant. Ear Nose Throat J 1994; 73 (03) 149-152 , 154–155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Wolfe J, Morais Duke M, Schafer E, Cire G, Menapace C, O'Neill L. Evaluation of a wireless audio streaming accessory to improve mobile telephone performance of cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2016; a 55 (02) 75-82
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rumeau C, Frère J, Montaut-Verient B, Lion A, Gauchard G, Parietti-Winkler C. Quality of life and audiologic performance through the ability to phone of cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (12) 3685-3692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Maiorana-Basas M, Pagliaro CM. Technology use among adults who are deaf and hard of hearing: a national survey. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2014; 19 (03) 400-410
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Di Nardo W, Anzivino R, Gambini G, De Corso E, Paludetti G. Improvement of telephone communication in elderly cochlear implant patients. Audiol Neurotol 2014; 19 (Suppl. 01) 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Giannantonio S, Di Nardo W, Schinaia L, Paludetti G. Adaptation of cochlear implant fitting to various telecommunication systems: a proposal for a 'telephone map'. Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134 (08) 802-812
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Castro A, Lassaletta L, Bastarrica M, Prim MP, De Sarriá MJ, Gavilán J. Comparison of different mobile telephones in Combi40+ users. Acta Otolaryngol 2006; 126 (07) 714-717
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Hu Y, Tahmina Q, Runge C, Friedland DR. The perception of telephone-processed speech by combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Trends Amplif 2013; 17 (03) 189-196
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Milchard AJ, Cullington HE. An investigation into the effect of limiting the frequency bandwidth of speech on speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (06) 356-362
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Kessens JM, Vlaming MS, Houtgast T. User evaluation of a communication system that automatically generates captions to improve telephone communication. Trends Amplif 2009; 13 (01) 44-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E. Speech recognition of bimodal cochlear implant recipients using a wireless audio streaming accessory for the telephone. Otol Neurotol 2016; b 37 (02) e20-e25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Marcrum SC, Picou EM, Steffens T. Avoiding disconnection: an evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (03) 186-193
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. Am J Audiol 2006; 15 (02) 114-126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1988
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Lenhard W, Lenhard A. Calculation of effect sizes. Dettelbach: Psychometrica; 2016 . Available at: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Ching TY, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (03) 161-192
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Peters BR, Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Lake J. Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28 (05) 649-657
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Wolfe J, Baker S, Caraway T. et al. 1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28 (05) 589-596
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar