Residual Hearing Does Not Influence the Effectiveness of Beamforming when Using a Cochlear Implant in Conjunction with Contralateral Routing of Signals

Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 28, pp. 262–271

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Contralateral routing of signals (CROS) overcomes the head shadow effect by redirecting speech signals from the contralateral ear to the better-hearing cochlear implant (CI) ear. Here we tested the performance of an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB) and a fixed binaural beamformer (BB) using the CROS system of Advanced Bionics. METHODS: In a group of 17 unilateral CI users, we evaluated the benefits of MB and BB for speech recognition by measuring speech reception threshold (SRT) with and without beamforming. MB and BB were additionally evaluated with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements using a KEMAR manikin. We also assessed the effect of residual hearing in the CROS ear on the benefits of MB and BB. Speech was delivered in front of the listener in a background of homogeneous 8-talker babble noise. RESULTS: With CI-CROS in omnidirectional settings with the T-mic active on the CI as a reference, BB significantly improved SRT by 1.4 dB, whereas MB yielded no significant improvements. The difference in effects on SRT between the two beamformers was, however, not significant. SNR effects were substantially larger, at 2.1 dB for MB and 5.8 dB for BB. CI-CROS with default omnidirectional settings also improved SRT and SNR by 1 dB over CI alone. Residual hearing did not significantly affect beamformer performance. DISCUSSION: We recommend the use of BB over MB for CI-CROS users. Residual hearing in the CROS ear is not a limiting factor for fitting a CROS device, although a bimodal option should be considered.

Authors 3

1. Hendrik Christiaan Stronks Aachen Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

   Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

2. Jeroen Johannes Briaire Aachen Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

3. Johan H. M. Frijns Aachen Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

   Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands