Aiding and Occluding the Contra lateral Ear in Implanted Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder

Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, WI, USA.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology (Impact Factor: 1.58). 10/2011; 22(9):567-77. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.22.9.2
Source: PubMed


The challenges associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) are due primarily to temporal impairment and therefore tend to affect perception of low- to midfrequency sounds. A common treatment option for severe impairment in ANSD is cochlear implantation, and because the degree of impairment is unrelated to degree of hearing loss by audiometric thresholds, this population may have significant acoustic sensitivity in the contralateral ear. Clinically, the question arises as to how we should treat the contralateral ear in this population when there is acoustic hearing-should we plug it, amplify it, implant it, or leave it alone?
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of acute amplification and plugging of the contralateral ear compared to no intervention in implanted children with ANSD and aidable contralateral hearing. It was hypothesized that due to impaired temporal processing in ANSD, contralateral acoustic input would interfere with speech perception achieved with the cochlear implant (CI) alone; therefore, speech perception performance will decline with amplification and improve with occlusion.
Prospective within-subject comparison. Adaptive speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) for monosyllable and spondee word stimuli were measured in quiet and in noise for the intervention configurations.
Nine children treated at the Medical College of Wisconsin Koss Cochlear Implant Program participated in the study. Inclusion criteria for this study were children diagnosed with ANSD who were unilaterally implanted, had aidable hearing in the contralateral ear (defined as a three-frequency pure-tone average of ≤80 dB HL), had at least 1 yr of cochlear implant experience, and were able to perform the speech perception task.
We compared SRT with the CI alone to SRTs with interventions of cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid (CI+HA) and cochlear implant with a contralateral earplug (CI+plug).
SRTs were measured and compared within subjects across listening conditions. Within-subject comparisons were analyzed using paired t-tests, and analyses of predictive variables for effects of contralateral intervention were analyzed using linear regression.
Contrary to the hypothesis, the bimodal CI+HA configuration showed a significant improvement in mean performance over the CI-alone configuration in quiet (p = .04). In noise, SRTs were obtained for six subjects, and no significant bimodal benefit was observed (p = .09). There were no consistent effects of occlusion observed across subjects and stimulus conditions. Degree of bimodal benefit showed a significant relationship with performance with the CI alone, with greater bimodal benefit associated with poorer CI-alone performance (p = .01). This finding, however, was limited by floor effects.
The results of this study indicate that children with ANSD who are experienced cochlear implant users may benefit from contralateral amplification, particularly for moderate cochlear implant performers. It is unclear from these data whether long-term contralateral hearing aid use in real-world situations would ultimately benefit this population; however, a hearing aid trial is recommended with assessment of bimodal benefit over time. These data may help inform clinical guidelines for determining optimal hearing configurations for unilaterally implanted children with ANSD, particularly when considering candidacy for sequential cochlear implantation.

Download full-text


Available from: Sergey S Tarima, Oct 13, 2015
24 Reads
  • Source
    • "This suggested that the residual hearing in the ear contralateral to the CI was in some way facilitating the patient ' s ability to localize sound sources prior to receiving a second implant. This fi nding is consistent with the unexpected fi nding of bimodal listening benefi t described by Runge et al, (2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The neural dys-synchrony associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) causes a temporal impairment that could degrade spatial hearing, particularly sound localization accuracy (SLA) and spatial release from masking (SRM). Unilateral cochlear implantation has become an accepted treatment for ANSD but treatment options for the contralateral ear remain controversial. We report spatial hearing measures in a child with ANSD before and after receiving a second cochlear implant (CI). Study sample: An 11-year-7-month old boy with ANSD and expressive and receptive language delay received a second CI eight years after his first implant. Design: The SLA and SRM were measured four months before sequential bilateral CIs (with the contralateral ear plugged and unplugged), and after nine months using both CIs. Results: Testing done before the second CI, with the first CI alone, suggested that residual hearing in the contralateral ear contributed to sound localization accuracy, but not word recognition in quiet or noise. Nine-months after receiving a second CI, SLA improved by 12.76° and SRM increased to 3.8-4.2 dB relative to pre-operative performance. Results were compared to published outcomes for children with bilateral CIs. Conclusions: The addition of a second CI in this child with ANSD improved spatial hearing.
    International journal of audiology 04/2013; 52(6). DOI:10.3109/14992027.2013.779755 · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spatial release from masking (SRM) was measured in groups of children with bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs, average ages 6.0 and 7.9 yr) and with normal hearing (NH, average ages 5.0 and 7.8 yr). Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for target speech in front (0°), and interferers in front, distributed asymmetrically toward the right (+90°/+90°) or distributed symmetrically toward the right and left (+90°/-90°). In the asymmetrical condition both monaural "better ear" and binaural cues are available. In the symmetrical condition, listeners rely heavily on binaural cues to segregate sources. SRM was computed as the difference between SRTs in the front condition and SRTs in either the asymmetrical or symmetrical conditions. Results showed that asymmetrical SRM was smaller in BiCI users than NH children. Furthermore, NH children showed symmetrical SRM, suggesting they are able to use binaural cues for source segregation, whereas children with BiCIs had minimal or absent symmetrical SRM. These findings suggest that children who receive BiCIs can segregate speech from noise under conditions that maximize monaural better ear cues. Limitations in the CI devices likely play an important role in limiting SRM. Thus, improvement in spatial hearing abilities in children with BiCIs may require binaural processing strategies.
    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 07/2012; 132(1):380-91. DOI:10.1121/1.4725760 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of review: Over the last decade, the selection criteria for cochlear implantation have expanded to include children with special auditory, otologic, and medical problems. Included within this expanded group of candidates are those children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, cochleovestibular malformations, cochlear nerve deficiency, associated syndromes, as well as multiple medical and developmental disorders. Definitive indications for cochlear implantation in these unique pediatric populations are in evolution. This review will provide an overview of managing and habilitating hearing loss within these populations with specific focus on cochlear implantation as a treatment option. Recent findings: Cochlear implants have been successfully implanted in children within unique populations with variable results. Evaluation for cochlear implant candidacy includes the core components of a full medical, audiologic, and speech and language evaluations. When considering candidacy in these children, additional aspects to consider include disorder-specific surgical considerations and child/caregiver counseling regarding reasonable postimplantation outcome expectations. Summary: Cochlear implants are accepted as the standard of care for improving hearing and speech development in children with severe-to-profound hearing loss. However, children with sensorineural hearing loss who meet established audiologic criteria for cochlear implantation may have unique audiologic, medical, and anatomic characteristics that necessitate special consideration regarding cochlear implantation candidacy and outcome. Individualized preoperative candidacy and counseling, surgical evaluation, and reasonable postoperative outcome expectations should be taken into account in the management of these children.
    Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery 11/2012; 20(6). DOI:10.1097/MOO.0b013e328359eea4 · 1.84 Impact Factor
Show more