Hearing with a cochlear implant: from bionic to bimodal listening

Introduction: Currently, cochlear implantation (CI) is the standard procedure for bilateral severe hearing loss in both children and adults. However, a considerable number of hearing-impaired patients, who are candidates for CI, have residual hearing in the low-frequency range. In addition to the refinement of the surgical techniques by the application of the principles of soft surgery, the design of particular, atraumatic electrodes, which are thinner, shorter and more flexible, has contributed to electroacoustic stimulation (EAS). The use of these atraumatic electrodes has resulted in preservation of residual hearing in up to 90% of cases. Electroacoustic hearing is associated with potential advantages over pure electric hearing: better speech understanding in noise, and superior music appreciation and sound quality. In addition, patients with EAS have awareness of sound, even when not wearing their CI. Methods: In the Ghent University Hospital, 6 severely hearing-impaired adult patients with sufficient low-frequency hearing were implanted with atraumatic electrodes. In 5/6 recipients, a Cochlear® Hybrid-L24 implant was used, whereas 1/6 received a Cochlear® CI422 implant. Results: Low-frequency acoustic hearing has been preserved in 5/6 patients. Three out of 6 patients use electroacoustic amplification postoperatively; 2/7 are stimulated electrically for the mid- and high-frequency range and have residual low-frequency hearing without need of amplification; and 1/6 patients is exclusively stimulated electrically for the whole frequency range because of deterioration of preoperative low-frequency hearing thresholds. Conclusion: In candidates for CI, application of soft surgery principles and the use of atraumatic electrodes should be raised to a standard because of the medical advantages, irrespective of the presence of residual hearing. In case of residual hearing, additional benefit is obtained in terms of better speech understanding in noise and a higher level of listening comfort

Sound caterpillar: an interactive, musical auditory training game for hearing impaired children

C

Evaluation of the olivocochlear efferent reflex strength in the susceptibility to temporary hearing deterioration after music exposure in young adults

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the predictive role of the olivocochlear efferent reflex strength in temporary hearing deterioration in young adults exposed to music. This was based on the fact that a noise-protective role of the medial olivocochlear (MOC) system was observed in animals and that efferent suppression (ES) measured using contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS) of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) is capable of exploring the MOC system. Knowing an individual's susceptibility to cochlear damage after noise exposure would enhance preventive strategies for noise-induced hearing loss. The hearing status of 28 young adults was evaluated using pure-tone audiometry, transient evoked OAEs (TEOAEs) and distortion product OAEs (DPOAEs) before and after listening to music using an MP3 player during 1 h at an individually determined loud listening level. CAS of TEOAEs was measured before music exposure to determine the amount of ES. Regression analysis showed a distinctive positive correlation between temporary hearing deterioration and the preferred gain setting of the MP3 player. However, no clear relationship between temporary hearing deterioration and the amount of ES was found. In conclusion, clinical measurement of ES, using CAS of TEOAEs, is not correlated with the amount of temporary hearing deterioration after 1 h music exposure in young adults. However, it is possible that the temporary hearing deterioration in the current study was insufficient to activate the MOC system. More research regarding ES might provide more insight in the olivocochlear efferent pathways and their role in auditory functioning

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016