Unilateral Hearing Loss: Understanding Speech Recognition and Localization Variability—Implications for Cochlear Implant Candidacy

Objectives: At a minimum, unilateral hearing loss (UHL) impairs sound localization ability and understanding speech in noisy environments, particularly if the loss is severe to profound. Accompanying the numerous negative consequences of UHL is considerable unexplained individual variability in the magnitude of its effects. Identification of covariables that affect outcome and contribute to variability in UHLs could augment counseling, treatment options, and rehabilitation. Cochlear implantation as a treatment for UHL is on the rise yet little is known about factors that could impact performance or whether there is a group at risk for poor cochlear implant outcomes when hearing is near-normal in one ear. The overall goal of our research is to investigate the range and source of variability in speech recognition in noise and localization among individuals with severe to profound UHL and thereby help determine factors relevant to decisions regarding cochlear implantation in this population. Design: The present study evaluated adults with severe to profound UHL and adults with bilateral normal hearing. Measures included adaptive sentence understanding in diffuse restaurant noise, localization, roving-source speech recognition (words from 1 of 15 speakers in a 140° arc), and an adaptive speech-reception threshold psychoacoustic task with varied noise types and noise-source locations. There were three age–sex-matched groups: UHL (severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear), normal hearing listening bilaterally, and normal hearing listening unilaterally. Results: Although the normal-hearing-bilateral group scored significantly better and had less performance variability than UHLs on all measures, some UHL participants scored within the range of the normal-hearing-bilateral group on all measures. The normal-hearing participants listening unilaterally had better monosyllabic word understanding than UHLs for words presented on the blocked/deaf side but not the open/hearing side. In contrast, UHLs localized better than the normal-hearing unilateral listeners for stimuli on the open/hearing side but not the blocked/deaf side. This suggests that UHLs had learned strategies for improved localization on the side of the intact ear. The UHL and unilateral normal-hearing participant groups were not significantly different for speech in noise measures. UHL participants with childhood rather than recent hearing loss onset localized significantly better; however, these two groups did not differ for speech recognition in noise. Age at onset in UHL adults appears to affect localization ability differently than understanding speech in noise. Hearing thresholds were significantly correlated with speech recognition for UHL participants but not the other two groups. Conclusions: Auditory abilities of UHLs varied widely and could be explained only in part by hearing threshold levels. Age at onset and length of hearing loss influenced performance on some, but not all measures. Results support the need for a revised and diverse set of clinical measures, including sound localization, understanding speech in varied environments, and careful consideration of functional abilities as individuals with severe to profound UHL are being considered potential cochlear implant candidates.

http://ift.tt/2ms19Qn