Objective: To determine the efficacy of “simultaneous” bilateral cochlear implantation (both implants placed during a single surgical procedure) by comparing bilateral and unilateral implant use in a large number of adult subjects tested at multiple sites. Design: Prospective study of 37 adults with postlinguistic onset of bilateral, severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Performance with the bilateral cochlear implants, using the same speech processor type and speech processing strategy, was compared with performance using the left implant alone and the right implant alone. Speech understanding in quiet (CNCs and HINT sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN Test) were evaluated at several postactivation time intervals, with speech presented at 0° azimuth, and noise at either 0°, 90° right, or 90° left in the horizontal plane. APHAB questionnaire data were collected after each subject underwent a 3-wk “bilateral deprivation” period, during which they wore only the speech processor that produced the best score during unilateral testing, and also after a period of listening again with the bilateral implants. Results: By 6-mo postactivation, a significant advantage for speech understanding in quiet was found in the bilateral listening mode compared with either unilateral listening modes. For speech understanding in noise, the largest and most robust bilateral benefit was when the subject was able to take advantage of the head shadow effect; i.e., results were significantly better for bilateral listening compared with the unilateral condition when the ear opposite to the side of the noise was added to create the bilateral condition. This bilateral benefit was seen on at least one of the two unilateral ear comparisons for nearly all (32/34) subjects. Bilateral benefit was also found for a few subjects in spatial configurations that evaluated binaural redundancy and binaural squelch effects. A subgroup of subjects who had asymmetrical unilateral implant performances were, overall, similar in performance to subjects with symmetrical hearing. The questionnaire data indicated that bilateral users perceive their own performance to be better with bilateral cochlear implants than when using a single device. Conclusions: Findings with a large patient group are in agreement with previous reports on smaller groups, showing that, overall, bilateral implantation offers the majority of patients advantages when listening in simulated adverse conditions.

Objective: The abilities to localize sounds and segregate speech from interfering sounds in a complex auditory environment were studied in a group of adults who use bilateral cochlear implants. The first aim of the study was to investigate the change in speech intelligibility under bilateral and unilateral listening modes as a function of bilateral experience during the first 6 mo of activation. The second aim was to look at whether localization and speech intelligibility in the presence of interfering speech are correlated and if the relationship is specific to the bilateral listening mode. The third aim was to examine whether sound lateralization (right versus left) emerges before sound localization within a hemifield. Design: Participants were 17 native English speaking adults with postlingual deafness. All subjects received the Nucleus 24 Contour implant in both ears, either during the same surgery or during two separate surgeries that were no more than 1 mo apart. Both devices for each subject were activated at the same time, regardless of surgical approach. Speech intelligibility was measured at 3 and 6 mo after activation. Target speech was presented at 0° in front. Testing was conducted in quiet and in the presence of four-talker babble. The babble was located on the right, on the left, or in front (colocated with the target). Sound localization abilities were measured at the 3 mo interval. All testing was conducted under three listening modes: left ear alone, right ear alone, or bilateral. Results: On the speech-in-babble task, benefit of listening with two ears compared with one was greater when going from 3 to 6 mo of experience. This was evident when the target speech and interfering speech were spatially separated, but not when they were presented from the same location. At 3 mo postactivation of bilateral hearing, 82% of subjects demonstrated bilateral benefit when right/left discrimination was evaluated. In contrast, 47% of subjects showed a bilateral benefit when sound localization was evaluated, suggesting that directional hearing might emerge in a two-step process beginning with discrimination and converging on more fine-grained localization. The bilateral speech intelligibility scores were positively correlated with sound localization abilities, so that listeners who were better able to hear speech in babble were generally better able to identify source locations. Conclusions: During the early stages of bilateral hearing through cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adults, there is an early emergence of spatial hearing skills. Although nearly all subjects can discriminate source locations to the right versus left, less than half are able to perform the more difficult task of identifying source locations in a multispeaker array. Benefits for speech intelligibility with one versus two implants improve with time, in particular when spatial cues are used to segregate speech and competing noise. Localization and speech-in-noise abilities in this group of patients are somewhat correlated.

This study evaluated functional benefits from bilateral stimulation in 20 children ages 4-14, 10 use two CIs and 10 use one CI and one HA. Localization acuity was measured with the minimum audible angle (MAA). Speech intelligibility was measured in quiet, and in the presence of 2-talker competing speech using the CRISP forced-choice test. Results show that both groups perform similarly when speech reception thresholds are evaluated. However, there appears to be benefit (improved MAA and speech thresholds) from wearing two devices compared with a single device that is significantly greater in the group with two CI than in the bimodal group. Individual variability also suggests that some children perform similarly to normal-hearing children, while others clearly do not. Future advances in binaural fitting strategies and improved speech processing schemes that maximize binaural sensitivity will no doubt contribute to increasing the binaurally-driven advantages in persons with bilateral CIs.

Children between the ages of 4 and 7 and adults were tested in free field on speech intelligibility using a four-alternative forced choice paradigm with spondees. Target speech was presented from front (0°); speech or modulated speech-shaped-noise competitors were either in front or on the right (90°). Speech reception thresholds were measured adaptively using a three-down/one-up algorithm. The primary difference between children and adults was seen in elevated thresholds in children in quiet and in all masked conditions. For both age groups, masking was greater with the speech-noise versus speech competitor and with two versus one competitor(s). Masking was also greater when the competitors were located in front compared with the right. The amount of masking did not differ across the two age groups. Spatial release from masking was similar in the two age groups, except for in the one-speech condition, when it was greater in children than adults. These findings suggest that, similar to adults, young children are able to utilize spatial and/or head shadow cues to segregate sounds in noisy environments. The potential utility of the measures used here for studying hearing-impaired children is also discussed.

In recent years, there have been improvements in speech-processing strategies used with cochlear implants (CIs). These improvements are particularly evident in speech understanding in quiet.^1,2 However, for most CI users, speech reception in a noisy or complex environment is still very poor. To understand speech in noise, CI users need higher signal-noise ratios than normal-hearing listeners.^3-6 Although noise reduction and spectral enhancement algorithms may prove to be important in improving speech-in-noise understanding,^7,8 lack of binaural hearing and the inability to take advantage of the better-ear effect may also explain poor performance in multisource environments.^9,10 Finally, normal-hearing listeners have a very large number of independent information channels, and the location of these channels along the cochlea is matched between the 2 ears, whereas CI users have a finite number of electrodes distributed along the tonotopic axis of the cochlea, and the electrode placement can vary.

Sensitivity to binaural cues was studied in 11 bilateral cochlear implant users, all of whom received both of their cochlear implants as adults, but who varied in the age at onset of deafness, from pre-lingual to childhood-onset to adult-onset. Sensitivity to interaural timing difference (ITD) and interaural level difference (ILD) cues was measured at basal, middle, and apical pitch-matched places of stimulation along the cochlear arrays, using a stimulation rate of 100Hz. Results show that there is a trend for people whose onset of deafness occurred during adult life or late childhood to retain at least some sensitivity to ITDs, whereas people with onset of deafness earlier in life were insensitive to ITDs. In contrast, ILD cue sensitivity was present in all subjects. There were no effects of place of stimulation on binaural sensitivity, suggesting that there is no indication of a dependence of ITD sensitivity on apical vs basal electrode location.