Comparison of Two Music Training Approaches on Music and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users

In normal-hearing (NH) adults, long-term music training may benefit music and speech perception, even when listening to spectro-temporally degraded signals as experienced by cochlear implant (CI) users. In this study, we compared two different music training approaches in CI users and their effects on speech and music perception, as it remains unclear which approach to music training might be best. The approaches differed in terms of music exercises and social interaction. For the pitch/timbre group, melodic contour identification (MCI) training was performed using computer software. For the music therapy group, training involved face-to-face group exercises (rhythm perception, musical speech perception, music perception, singing, vocal emotion identification, and music improvisation). For the control group, training involved group nonmusic activities (e.g., writing, cooking, and woodworking). Training consisted of weekly 2-hr sessions over a 6-week period. Speech intelligibility in quiet and noise, vocal emotion identification, MCI, and quality of life (QoL) were measured before and after training. The different training approaches appeared to offer different benefits for music and speech perception. Training effects were observed within-domain (better MCI performance for the pitch/timbre group), with little cross-domain transfer of music training (emotion identification significantly improved for the music therapy group). While training had no significant effect on QoL, the music therapy group reported better perceptual skills across training sessions. These results suggest that more extensive and intensive training approaches that combine pitch training with the social aspects of music therapy may further benefit CI users

The musician effect:does it persist under degraded pitch conditions of cochlear implant simulations?

Cochlear implants (CIs) are auditory prostheses that restore hearing via electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. Compared to normal acoustic hearing, sounds transmitted through the CI are spectro-temporally degraded, causing difficulties in challenging listening tasks such as speech intelligibility in noise and perception of music. In normal hearing (NH), musicians have been shown to better perform than non-musicians in auditory processing and perception, especially for challenging listening tasks. This "musician effect" was attributed to better processing of pitch cues, as well as better overall auditory cognitive functioning in musicians. Does the musician effect persist when pitch cues are degraded, as it would be in signals transmitted through a CI? To answer this question, NH musicians and non-musicians were tested while listening to unprocessed signals or to signals processed by an acoustic CI simulation. The task increasingly depended on pitch perception: (1) speech intelligibility (words and sentences) in quiet or in noise, (2) vocal emotion identification, and (3) melodic contour identification (MCI). For speech perception, there was no musician effect with the unprocessed stimuli, and a small musician effect only for word identification in one noise condition, in the CI simulation. For emotion identification, there was a small musician effect for both. For MCI, there was a large musician effect for both. Overall, the effect was stronger as the importance of pitch in the listening task increased. This suggests that the musician effect may be more rooted in pitch perception, rather than in a global advantage in cognitive processing (in which musicians would have performed better in all tasks). The results further suggest that musical training before (and possibly after) implantation might offer some advantage in pitch processing that could partially benefit speech perception, and more strongly emotion and music perception

Changes in Tinnitus by Cochlear Implantation:A Parametric Study of the Effect of Single-Electrode Stimulation

Introduction: While cochlear implantation may have a positive effect on tinnitus, it is not effective in reducing tinnitus in all patients. This may be due to different patients requiring different strategies of electrical stimulation in order to obtain a positive effect on tinnitus. It is, therefore, important to identify the most effective stimulation strategies to reduce tinnitus. The simplest possible strategy is stimulation by only one electrode. In this study, we investigated tinnitus suppression by electrical stimulation via a single electrode of the cochlear implant. Methods: We performed a listening experiment in 19 adult participants, who had received a unilateral cochlear implant (CI) because of severe bilateral hearing loss. All of these patients had indicated that they suffered from tinnitus. During a 300-s interval, patients listened to blocks of single-electrode stimulation and rated the loudness of the stimulus and any effects on their tinnitus. The 300-s interval included a block of single-electrode stimulation (duration 120 s). In consecutive intervals, the stimulus differed in its cochlear location (basal or apical), its pulse rate (720 or 725 Hz, 1,200 Hz, and 2,400 or 2,320 Hz), and amplitude (just above threshold or equivalent to moderate loudness). Thus, 2 × 3 × 2 = 12 stimulus conditions were tested in each participant, and each condition was presented only once. During the experiment, the participants promptly rated the loudness of the stimuli and the loudness of their tinnitus on a Visual Analogue Scale (10-point VAS). Results: Significantly more tinnitus reduction was observed with stimuli at a moderate intensity level (30%) compared to stimuli at near-threshold level (18%) ([1, N = 222] = 14.115, p < 0.01). No significant differences in tinnitus levels resulted from the different pulse rates and stimulation sites. Eight participants reported an increase of tinnitus loudness under at least one stimulus condition. Changes in tinnitus loudness were generally minor, and never exceeded 3 points on the VAS. The overall effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus, that is, the effect with full-array stimulation, was not correlated with the effectiveness of the single-electrode stimulation on tinnitus. Conclusion: In conclusion, the effect of single-electrode stimulation on tinnitus is relatively insignificant in comparison to the effect of full-array stimulation. However, in some individual cases, sustained single-electrode stimulation may be beneficial for tinnitus management

A Prospective Study of the Effect of Cochlear Implantation on Tinnitus

Previous studies have shown diverse and sometimes even contrary results concerning the effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus and the factors that can influence this effect. The aim of this prospective questionnaire study was to determine the effects of cochlear implantation on tinnitus and explore which factors can influence the effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus. Forty-four of the patients implanted in our hospital returned 2 questionnaire packages, i.e., one before the cochlear implantation and one 6 months after implantation. Before implantation, 66% of the patients experienced tinnitus. This study shows that cochlear implantation could help to reduce tinnitus and the tinnitus handicap in at least 28% of the patients with preoperative tinnitus. In 72% of the patients the tinnitus remained after implantation. None of the patients developed tinnitus after implantation. A shorter duration of tinnitus prior to implantation, a more fluctuating type of tinnitus, a higher tinnitus handicap prior to implantation, and a round-window surgical approach might have a positive influence on the effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus, but further research is necessary to confirm these findings. (C) 2019 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel</p

Musician effect in cochlear implant simulated gender categorization

Musicians have been shown to better perceive pitch and timbre cues in speech and music, compared to non-musicians. It is unclear whether this "musician advantage" persists under conditions of spectro-temporal degradation, as experienced by cochlear-implant (CI) users. In this study, gender categorization was measured in normal-hearing musicians and non-musicians listening to acoustic CI simulations. Recordings of Dutch words were synthesized to systematically vary fundamental frequency, vocal-tract length, or both to create voices from the female source talker to a synthesized male talker. Results showed an overall musician effect, mainly due to musicians weighting fundamental frequency more than non-musicians in CI simulations. (C) 2014 Acoustical Society of Americ

An auditory brainstem implant for treatment of unilateral tinnitus:protocol for an interventional pilot study

INTRODUCTION: Tinnitus may have a very severe impact on the quality of life. Unfortunately, for many patients, a satisfactory treatment modality is lacking. The auditory brainstem implant (ABI) was originally indicated for hearing restoration in patients with non-functional cochlear nerves, for example, in neurofibromatosis type II. In analogy to a cochlear implant (CI), it has been demonstrated that an ABI may reduce tinnitus as a beneficial side effect. For tinnitus treatment, an ABI may have an advantage over a CI, as cochlear implantation can harm inner ear structures due to its invasiveness, while an ABI is presumed to not damage anatomical structures. This is the first study to implant an ABI to investigate its effect on intractable tinnitus. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this pilot study, 10 adults having incapacitating unilateral intractable tinnitus and ipsilateral severe hearing loss will have an ABI implanted. The ABI is switched on 6 weeks after implantation, followed by several fitting sessions aimed at finding an optimal stimulation strategy. The primary outcome will be the change in Tinnitus Functioning Index. Secondary outcomes will be tinnitus burden and quality of life (using Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires), tinnitus characteristics (using Visual Analogue Scale, a tinnitus analysis), safety, audiometric and vestibular function. The end point is set at 1 year after implantation. Follow-up will continue until 5 years after implantation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands (METc 2015/479). The trial is registered at www.clinicialtrials.gov and will be updated if amendments are made. Results of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02630589. TRIAL STATUS: Inclusion of first patient in November 2017. Data collection is in progress. Trial is open for further inclusion. The trial ends at 5 years after inclusion of the last patient

The Relation Between Tinnitus and a Neurovascular Conflict of the Cochleovestibular Nerve on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Introduction:Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is often used in diagnostic evaluation of tinnitus patients. Incidental findings like a neurovascular conflict (NVC) in the cerebellopontine angle are often found; however, the diagnostic value of this finding remains unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the type or degree of compression of the vestibulocochlear nerve is of diagnostic value in patients with a NVC.Methods:A retrospective study was performed in 111 tinnitus patients with available MR imaging between 2013 and 2015. Clinical and audiometric variables were gathered and MR imaging was reevaluated by two neuroradiologists. NVCs were analyzed using a grading system based on previous research by Sirikci et al.Results:In total, 220 ears were available for assessment. In patients with unilateral tinnitus a loop compression and an indentation of the cochleovestibular nerve were more frequent than in patients with bilateral tinnitus. However, there was no significant difference in distribution of the type of compression between tinnitus and nontinnitus ears. Patient with unilateral tinnitus had a significantly higher degree of hearing loss in the symptomatic ear, compared with the asymptomatic ear and with the bilateral tinnitus group. Also, it was found that the degree of hearing loss did not differ between the various types of compression.Conclusion:This study did not find a diagnostic value of specific types of compression in patients with a NVC. Although the distribution of NVC classification was different in patients with unilateral and bilateral tinnitus, there was no definite relation between the type of NVC and the presence of ipsilateral tinnitus. Also, the degree of hearing loss was not related to specific types of NVC

Cluster Analysis to Identify Possible Subgroups in Tinnitus Patients

Introduction: In tinnitus treatment, there is a tendency to shift from a "one size fits all" to a more individual, patient-tailored approach. Insight in the heterogeneity of the tinnitus spectrum might improve the management of tinnitus patients in terms of choice of treatment and identification of patients with severe mental distress. The goal of this study was to identify subgroups in a large group of tinnitus patients. Methods: Data were collected from patients with severe tinnitus complaints visiting our tertiary referral tinnitus care group at the University Medical Center Groningen. Patientreported and physician-reported variables were collected during their visit to our clinic. Cluster analyses were used to characterize subgroups. For the selection of the right variables to enter in the cluster analysis, two approaches were used: (1) variable reduction with principle component analysis and (2) variable selection based on expert opinion. Results: Various variables of 1,783 tinnitus patients were included in the analyses. Cluster analysis (1) included 976 patients and resulted in a four-cluster solution. The effect of external influences was the most discriminative between the groups, or clusters, of patients. The "silhouette measure" of the cluster outcome was low (0.2), indicating a "no substantial" cluster structure. Cluster analysis (2) included 761 patients and resulted in a three-cluster solution, comparable to the first analysis. Again, a "no substantial" cluster structure was found (0.2). Conclusion: Two cluster analyses on a large database of tinnitus patients revealed that clusters of patients are mostly formed by a different response of external influences on their disease. However, both cluster outcomes based on this dataset showed a poor stability, suggesting that our tinnitus population comprises a continuum rather than a number of clearly defined subgroups

No Difference in Behavioral and Self-Reported Outcomes for Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Evidence From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the behavioral and self-reported outcomes of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (simBiCI) and sequential BiCI (seqBiCI) in adults with severe-to-profound postlingual sensorineural hearing loss.Design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 4-year follow-up period after the first moment of implantation. Participants were allocated by randomization to receive bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) either, simultaneously (simBiCI group) or sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years (UCI/seqBiCI group). All sequential patients where encouraged to use their hearing aid on the non-implanted ear over of the first 2 years. Patients were followed-up on an annual basis. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise coming from a source directly in front of the patient. Other behavioral outcome measures were speech intelligibility-in-noise from spatially separated sources, localization and speech perception in quiet. Self-reported outcome measures encompassed questionnaires on quality of life, quality of hearing and tinnitus. All outcome measures were analyzed longitudinally using a linear or logistic regression analysis with an autoregressive residual covariance matrix (generalized estimating equations type).Results: Nineteen participants were randomly allocated to the simBiCI group and 19 participants to the UCI/seqBiCI group. Three participants in the UCI/seqBiCI group did not proceed with their second implantation and were therefore unavailable for follow-up. Both study groups performed equally well on speech perception in noise from a source directly in front of the patient longitudinally. During all 4 years of follow-up the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse compared to the simBiCI group on spatial speech perception in noise in the best performance situation (8.70 dB [3.96 – 13.44], p &lt; 0.001) and localization abilities (largest difference 60 degrees configuration: -44.45% [-52.15 – -36.74], p &lt; 0.0001). Furthermore, during all years of follow-up, the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse on quality of hearing and quality of life questionnaires. The years of unilateral CI use were the reason for the inferior results in the UCI/SeqBiCI group. One year after receiving CI2, the UCI/seqBiCI group performance did not statistically differ from the performance of the simBiCI group on all these outcomes. Furthermore, no longitudinal differences were seen in tinnitus burden prevalence between groups. Finally, the complications that occurred during this trial were infection, dysfunction of CI, facial nerve palsy, tinnitus and vertigo.Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial on bilaterally severely hearing impaired participants found a significantly worse longitudinal performance of UCI/seqBiCI compared to simBiCI on multiple behavioral and self-reported outcomes regarding speech perception in noise and localization abilities. This difference is associated with the inferior performance of the UCI/seqBiCI participants during the years of unilateral CI use. After receiving the second CI however, the performance of the UCI/seqBiCI group did not significantly differ from the simBiCI group.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722

No Difference in Behavioral and Self-Reported Outcomes for Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation:Evidence From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the behavioral and self-reported outcomes of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (simBiCI) and sequential BiCI (seqBiCI) in adults with severe-to-profound postlingual sensorineural hearing loss. Design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 4-year followup period after the first moment of implantation. Participants were allocated by randomization to receive bilateral cochlear implants (Cis) either, simultaneously (simBiCKI group) or sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years (UCI/seqBiCI group). All sequential patients where encouraged to use their hearing aid on the non-implanted ear over of the first 2 years. Patients were followed-up on an annual basis. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise coming from a source directly in front of the patient. Other behavioral outcome measures were speech intelligibility-innoise from spatially separated sources, localization and speech perception in quiet. Self-reported outcome measures encompassed questionnaires on quality of life, quality of hearing and tinnitus. All outcome measures were analyzed longitudinally using a linear or logistic regression analysis with an autoregressive residual covariance matrix (generalized estimating equations type). Results: Nineteen participants were randomly allocated to the simBiCl group and 19 participants to the UCI/seqBiCI group. Three participants in the UCI/seqBiCI group did not proceed with their second implantation and were therefore unavailable for followup. Both study groups performed equally well on speech perception in noise from a source directly in front of the patient longitudinally. During all 4 years of follow-up the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse compared to the simBiCl group on spatial speech perception in noise in the best performance situation (8.70 dB [3.96 13.44], p <0.001) and localization abilities (largest difference 60 degrees configuration: -44.45% [-52.15 - -36.74], p <0.0001). Furthermore, during all years of follow-up, the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse on quality of hearing and quality of life questionnaires. The years of unilateral CI use were the reason for the inferior results in the UCI/SeqBiCI group. One year after receiving CI2, the UCI/seqBiCI group performance did not statistically differ from the performance of the simBiCl group on all these outcomes. Furthermore, no longitudinal differences were seen in tinnitus burden prevalence between groups. Finally, the complications that occurred during this trial were infection, dysfunction of CI, facial nerve palsy, tinnitus and vertigo. Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial on bilaterally severely hearing impaired participants found a significantly worse longitudinal performance of UCI/seqBiCI compared to simBiCI on multiple behavioral and self-reported outcomes regarding speech perception in noise and localization abilities. This difference is associated with the inferior performance of the UCI/seqBiCI participants during the years of unilateral CI use. After receiving the second CI however, the performance of the UCI/seqBiCI group did not significantly differ from the simBiCI group