TY - JOUR
T1 - The addition of a contralateral microphone for unilateral cochlear implant users
T2 - Not an alternative for bilateral cochlear implantation
AU - Van Loon, Maarten C.
AU - Goverts, S. Theo
AU - Merkus, Paul
AU - Hensen, Erik F.
AU - Smits, Cas
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2014 Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Results: CI-CROS only provided a benefit in the listening situation wherein speech originates from the side of the CROS microphone; however, this benefit was repealed by disadvantages in other listening conditions. With CI-CROS, the hearing of patient is essentially monaural, albeit with bilateral input; therefore, patients were not able to benefit from the same binaural advantages as normal-hearing subjects and bilateral CI users. Moreover, patients using CI-CROS lost the ability to choose the optimal listening condition to perform as well as unilateral CI users.Conclusion: We conclude that CI-CROS is not advisable for unilateral CI users. Bilateral cochlear implantation would be a better alternative for the rehabilitation of patients with unaidable hearing on the contralateral side.Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users benefit from the addition of a contralateral microphone (CI-CROS) for spatial speech recognition.Setting: Tertiary referral otology and cochlear implant center.Methods: The digits-in-noise test was used to measure speech in noise recognition abilities. Evaluations were made in 3 conditions: speech and noise presented from the front of the listener (S0N0) and with spatial separation of speech and noise (S90N-90 and S-90N90). The performance of CI patients using CI-CROS was compared with their unilateral CI condition (n = 10), normalhearing subjects (n = 12), and bilateral CI users (n = 5). The presence and extent of several binaural phenomena (binaural summation, binaural squelch, and the better-ear effect) were evaluated.
AB - Results: CI-CROS only provided a benefit in the listening situation wherein speech originates from the side of the CROS microphone; however, this benefit was repealed by disadvantages in other listening conditions. With CI-CROS, the hearing of patient is essentially monaural, albeit with bilateral input; therefore, patients were not able to benefit from the same binaural advantages as normal-hearing subjects and bilateral CI users. Moreover, patients using CI-CROS lost the ability to choose the optimal listening condition to perform as well as unilateral CI users.Conclusion: We conclude that CI-CROS is not advisable for unilateral CI users. Bilateral cochlear implantation would be a better alternative for the rehabilitation of patients with unaidable hearing on the contralateral side.Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users benefit from the addition of a contralateral microphone (CI-CROS) for spatial speech recognition.Setting: Tertiary referral otology and cochlear implant center.Methods: The digits-in-noise test was used to measure speech in noise recognition abilities. Evaluations were made in 3 conditions: speech and noise presented from the front of the listener (S0N0) and with spatial separation of speech and noise (S90N-90 and S-90N90). The performance of CI patients using CI-CROS was compared with their unilateral CI condition (n = 10), normalhearing subjects (n = 12), and bilateral CI users (n = 5). The presence and extent of several binaural phenomena (binaural summation, binaural squelch, and the better-ear effect) were evaluated.
KW - Bilateral hearing loss
KW - Binaural hearing
KW - Cochlear implantation
KW - Contralateral routing of signal
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84914104318&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000461
DO - https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000461
M3 - Article
C2 - 25226266
SN - 1531-7129
VL - 35
SP - e233-e239
JO - Otology and Neurotology
JF - Otology and Neurotology
IS - 9
ER -