Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bilateral use of active middle ear implants: speech discrimination results in noise

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Binaural sound reception has advantages over unilateral perception, including better localization and sound quality as well as speech and tone reception in both quiet and noisy environments. Up to now, most active middle ear implant (AMEI) users have been unilaterally implanted, but patient demand for an implant on the other side is increasing. Ten bilaterally-AMEI implanted native German-speaking adults were included in the study. The Oldenburg sentence test was used to measure speech reception thresholds in noise. The subject’s signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at a speech reception score of 50 % was calculated for different noise conditions. SRT was measured as a function of noise condition (nc) and listening condition (lc)—for example, SRT (lc, nc), with nc from S0N0, S0N-90, or S0N90 and lc from left, right or both. For each noise condition, the squelch effect and the binaural summation effect were calculated. Patients in this study demonstrated improvement with bilateral AMEIs compared to right or left AMEI only in all three tested listening conditions. Statistical significance was found in the S0N0 condition to favor usage of bilateral AMI versus either the right or left side only. The benefits of binaural hearing are well known, also in normal-hearing individuals. In the future every bilateral implantation should be a part of the clinical routine. Bilateral implantation can help to reduce problems in background noise and restore directional hearing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ricketts T, Lindley G, Henry P (2001) Impact of compression and hearing aid style on directional hearing aid benefit and performance. Ear Hear 22:348–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saliba I, Calmels MN, Wanna G et al (2005) Binaurality in middle ear implant recipients using contralateral digital hearing AIDS. Otol Neurotol 26:680–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Garin P, Schmerber S, Magnan J et al (2010) Bilateral vibrant soundbridge implantation: audiologic and subjective benefits in quiet and noisy environments. Acta Otolaryngol 130:1370–1378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stern RM Jr, Colburn HS (1978) Theory of binaural interaction based in auditory-nerve data. IV. A model for subjective lateral position. J Acoust Soc Am 64:127–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boheim K, Mlynski R, Lenarz T et al (2012) Round window vibroplasty: long-term results. Acta Otolaryngol 132:1042–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beleites T, Neudert M, Beutner D et al (2011) Experience with vibroplasty couplers at the stapes head and footplate. Otol Neurotol 32:1468–1472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Enwicklung und evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache 38(2):44–56

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Enwicklung und evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache 38(3):86–95

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R (1988) The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 83:1508–1516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Noble W, Gatehouse S (2006) Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 45(2):172–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Noble W (2006) Bilateral hearing aids: a review of self-reports of benefit in comparison with unilateral fitting. Int J Audiol 45(1):S63–S71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolframm MD, Giarbini N, Streitberger C (2012) Speech-in-noise and subjective benefit with active middle ear implant omnidirectional and directional microphones: a within-subjects comparison. Otol Neurotol 33:618–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peters BR, Wyss J, Manriqe M (2010) Worldwide trends in bilateral cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 120:17–44. doi:10.1002/lary.20859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Holmes AE (2003) Bilateral amplification for the elderly: two aids better than one? Int J Audiol 42:2S63–2S67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Clinic St. Poelten, Propst Fuehrer-Strasse 4, 3100, St. Poelten, Austria

    Astrid Wolf-Magele, Johannes Schnabl & Georg Mathias Sprinzl

  2. Department for Hearing, Speech and Voice Disorders, University Clinic Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Viktor Koci & Patrick Zorowka

  3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Clinic Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Herbert Riechelmann

Authors
  1. Astrid Wolf-Magele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Viktor Koci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Schnabl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Zorowka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Herbert Riechelmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Georg Mathias Sprinzl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid Wolf-Magele.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors disclose that there is no conflict of interest.

Financial disclosure

All authors declare that neither financial interests nor financial support by companies exists. Furthermore, there are no financial interests the author may have in companies or other entities that have an interest in the information in the Contribution. All authors declare that the manuscript has not been published previously nor is it under review by another journal. The paper has not been presented to any professional society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wolf-Magele, A., Koci, V., Schnabl, J. et al. Bilateral use of active middle ear implants: speech discrimination results in noise. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273, 2065–2072 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3783-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3783-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation