Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T19:08:04.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of sound localisation ability in bimodal versus bilateral cochlear implant users

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2025

Y. Long Open the ORCID record for Y. Long [Opens in a new window] ,
W. Wang ,
J. Liu ,
Y. Liu  and
S. Gong
Y. Long*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
W. Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
J. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
Y. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
S. Gong
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
*
Corresponding author: Yue Long; Email: lyly152@yeah.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To compare the sound localisation abilities of bimodal cochlear implant and bilateral cochlear implant users.

Methods

A horizontal sound source discrimination task was conducted with 44 and 20 bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users, respectively. Paired and two-sample t-tests were performed for paired and unpaired data, respectively.

Results

The root mean square error scores of the bimodal cochlear implant and bilateral cochlear implant users were 75.77 ± 10.49° and 54.39 ± 19.82°, respectively. The bilateral cochlear implant users’ root mean square error score was significantly better than that of the bimodal cochlear implant users (t = 5.65, p < 0.001). The root mean square error scores of bimodal cochlear implant users with good and poor low-frequency hearing were 75.45 ± 11.07° and 76.10 ± 10.14°, respectively, with no significant intergroup difference (t = 0.20, p = 0.84).

Conclusion

Bilateral cochlear implantation may be more helpful for sound localisation in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The better low-frequency hearing threshold of the non-implanted ears did not result in better sound localisation ability in bimodal cochlear implant users.

Keywords

Hearing lossbilateralCochlear implantsHearing aidsSound localisation

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andries, E, Lorens, A, Skarżyński, PH, Skarżyński, H, Calvino, M, Gavilán, J, et al. Holistic assessment of cochlear implant outcomes using the international classification of functioning disability and health model: data analysis of a longitudinal prospective multicenter study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024;281:4161–73Google Scholar
Zeng, FG. Celebrating the one millionth cochlear implant. JASA Express Lett 2022;2:077201Google Scholar
Angermeier, J, Hemmert, W, Zirn, S. Sound localization bias and error in bimodal listeners improve instantaneously when the device delay mismatch is reduced. Trends Hear 2021;25:23312165211016165Google Scholar
Peters, BR, Wyss, J, Manrique, M. Worldwide trends in bilateral cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 2010;120 (suppl 2):S17–44Google Scholar
Dorman, MF, Gifford, RH. Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 2010;49:912–19Google Scholar
Zaleski-King, A, Goupell, MJ, Barac-Cikoja, D, Bakke, M. Bimodal cochlear implant listeners’ ability to perceive minimal audible angle differences. J Am Acad Audiol 2019;30:659–71Google Scholar
Risoud, M, Hanson, JN, Gauvrit, F, Renard, C, Lemesre, PE, Bonne, NX, et al. Sound source localization. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2018;135:259–64Google Scholar
Van Hoesel, RJ. Contrasting benefits from contralateral implants and hearing aids in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2012;288:100–13Google Scholar
Potts, LG, Litovsky, RY. Transitioning from bimodal to bilateral cochlear implant listening: speech recognition and localization in four individuals. Am J Audiol 2014; 23:79–92Google Scholar
Sparreboom, M, Ausili, S, Agterberg, MJH, Mylanus, EAM. Bimodal fitting and bilateral cochlear implants in children with significant residual hearing: the impact of asymmetry in spatial release of masking on localization. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2021;64:4030–43Google Scholar
Choi, JE, Moon, IJ, Kim, EY, Park, HS, Kim, BK, Chung, WH, et al. Sound localization and speech perception in noise of pediatric cochlear implant recipients: bimodal fitting versus bilateral cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2017;38:426–40Google Scholar
Hartmann, WM, Rakerd, B, Gaalaas, JB. On the source-identification method. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3546–57Google Scholar
Zirn, S, Angermeier, J, Arndt, S, Aschendorff, A, Wesarg, T. Reducing the device delay mismatch can improve sound localization in bimodal cochlear implant/hearing-aid users. Trends Hear 2019;23:2331216519843876Google Scholar
Francart, T, Lenssen, A, Wouters, J. Enhancement of interaural level differences improves sound localization in bimodal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2011;130:2817–26Google Scholar
Francart, T, McDermott, HJ. Psychophysics, fitting, and signal processing for combined hearing aid and cochlear implant stimulation. Ear Hear 2013;34:685–700Google Scholar
Wess, JM, Brungart, DS, Bernstein, JGW. The effect of interaural mismatches on contralateral unmasking with single-sided vocoders. Ear Hear 2017;38:374–86Google Scholar
Zirn, S, Arndt, S, Aschendorff, A, Wesarg, T. Interaural stimulation timing in single sided deaf cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2015;328:148–56Google Scholar
Stone, MA, Moore, BC. Tolerable hearing aid delays. I. Estimation of limits imposed by the auditory path alone using simulated hearing losses. Ear Hear 1999; 20:182–92Google Scholar
Akeroyd, MA. The psychoacoustics of binaural hearing. Int J Audiol 2006;45 (suppl 1):S25–33Google Scholar