Introduction: Cochlear implantation is the standard treatment for severe to profound hearing loss. While cochlear implant (CI) users can communicate effectively in quiet environments, speech understanding in noise remains challenging. Bimodal hearing, combining a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the other, has shown advantages over unilateral electrical hearing, especially for speech understanding in noisy conditions. Beamforming is a technique used to improve speech understanding in noise by detecting sound direction and enhancing frontal (speech) sounds while attenuating background noise. One specific beamformer, Stereozoom, combines signals from microphones in both ears to create a focused beam toward the front resulting in a binaural beamformer (BB), in order to improve speech intelligibility in noise for bilateral and bimodal CI users. Methods: A prospective crossover study involving 17 bimodal CI users was conducted, and participants were tested with various device configurations (CI, HA, CI + HA) with and without BB. Speech recognition testing with the Dutch/Flemish matrix test was performed in a sound-attenuated booth with diffuse noise to simulate realistic listening conditions. Results: The results showed a statistically significant benefit of bimodal hearing over the CI configuration and showed a statistical significant benefit of BB for the CI and CI + HA configuration. The benefit of BB in the HA configuration was not statistically significant probably due to the higher variance. The benefit of BB in the three configurations did not differ statistically significant. Conclusion: In conclusion, bimodal hearing offers advantages for speech understanding in noise for CI users. BB provides a benefit in various device configurations, leading to improved speech intelligibility when speech comes from the front in challenging listening environments.@en

Objectives:
We investigated whether listening effort is dependent on task difficulty for cochlear implant (CI) users when using the Matrix speech-in-noise test. To this end, we measured peak pupil dilation (PPD) at a wide range of signal to noise ratios (SNR) by systematically changing the noise level at a constant speech level, and vice versa.

Design:
A group of mostly elderly CI users performed the Dutch/Flemish Matrix test in quiet and in multitalker babble at different SNRs. SNRs were set relative to the speech-recognition threshold (SRT), namely at SRT, and 5 and 10 dB above SRT (0 dB, +5 dB, and +10 dB re SRT). The latter 2 conditions were obtained by either varying speech level (at a fixed noise level of 60 dBA) or by varying noise level (with a fixed speech level). We compared these PPDs with those of a group of typical hearing (TH) listeners. In addition, listening effort was assessed with subjective ratings on a Likert scale.

Results:
PPD for the CI group did not significantly depend on SNR, whereas SNR significantly affected PPDs for TH listeners. Subjective effort ratings depended significantly on SNR for both groups. For CI users, PPDs were significantly larger, and effort was rated higher when speech was varied, and noise was fixed for CI users. By contrast, for TH listeners effort ratings were significantly higher and performance scores lower when noise was varied, and speech was fixed.

Conclusions:
The lack of a significant effect of varying SNR on PPD suggests that the Matrix test may not be a feasible speech test for measuring listening effort with pupillometric measures for CI users. A rating test appeared more promising in this population, corroborating earlier reports that subjective measures may reflect different dimensions of listening effort than pupil dilation. Establishing the SNR by varying speech or noise level can have subtle, but significant effects on measures of listening effort, and these effects can differ between TH listeners and CI users.@en