Speech Recognition and Subjective Hearing Abilities for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users With Unilateral Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: Some cochlear implant (CI) recipients with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) have functional acoustic hearing in the implanted ear, warranting the fitting of an ipsilateral electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device. The present study assessed speech recognition and subjective hearing abilities over time for EAS users with UHL. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, repeated-measures. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Adult CI recipients with normal-to-moderate low-frequency acoustic thresholds in the implanted ear and a contralateral pure-tone average (0.5, 1, and 2 kHz) ≤25 dB HL. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation. Speech recognition for the affected ear was evaluated with CNC words in quiet. Masked speech recognition in the bilateral condition was evaluated with AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker (0 dB SNR) for three spatial configurations: target from the front and masker either colocated with the target or presented 90 degrees toward the affected or contralateral ear. Responses to the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale subscales were used to assess subjective hearing abilities. RESULTS: Participants experienced significant improvements in CNC scores ( F(3,13) = 14.90, p < 0.001), and masked speech recognition in the colocated ( F(3,11) = 3.79, p = 0.043) and masker toward the contralateral ear ( F(3,11) = 4.75, p = 0.023) configurations. They also reported significantly better abilities on the Speech Hearing ( F(3,13) = 5.19, p = 0.014) and Spatial Hearing ( F(3,13) = 10.22, p = 0.001) subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with UHL and functional acoustic hearing in the implanted ear experience significant improvements in speech recognition and subjective hearing abilities within the initial months of EAS use as compared with preoperative performance and perceptions.

Benefits of Cochlear Implantation for Older Adults With Asymmetric Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE(S): FDA-approved indications for cochlear implantation include patients with severe-to-profound unilateral hearing loss (UHL) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL); however, these indications are not covered for Medicare beneficiaries. We assessed the outcomes of cochlear implant (CI) use for older adults with UHL or AHL. METHODS: Eighteen older adults (≥65 years of age at surgery) with UHL/AHL participated in a prospective, longitudinal investigation evaluating outcomes of CI use. Speech recognition for the affected ear was evaluated with consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words. Spatial hearing was assessed with measures of sound source localization and sentence recognition in noise. The target sentence was presented from the front and the masker was either co-located with the target (SoNo), presented toward the affected ear (SoNci) or contralateral ear (SoNcontra). Perceived benefit was assessed with the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ) and the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI). RESULTS: Participants experienced significant improvements with CI use for CNC words (mean [SD]; preop: 8% [10%], 1 yr: 51% [22%], 5 yr: 50% [19%]), masked sentence recognition (SoNcontra preop: 5% [6%], 1 yr: 22% [15%], 5 yr: 41% [14%]), and localization (preop: 76° [18°], 1 yr: 40° [11°], 5 yr: 41° [14°]), and reported significant improvements in hearing abilities (SSQ Spatial Hearing preop: 3 [1], 1 yr: 6 [2], 5 yr: 6 [2]) and tinnitus severity (THI preop: 16 [18], 1 yr: 4 [14], 5 yr: 6 [12]). CONCLUSION: Older adults with UHL/AHL experience significant improvements in speech recognition, spatial hearing, and subjective perceptions (e.g., hearing abilities and tinnitus severity) with a CI as compared to pre-operative abilities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV Laryngoscope, 2024.

What Do People Want to Know About Cochlear Implants: A Google Analytic Study.

OBJECTIVE: Identify the questions most frequently asked online about cochlear implants (CI) and assess the readability and quality of the content. METHODS: A Google search engine observational study was conducted via a search response optimization (SEO) tool. The SEO tool listed the questions generated by Google's "People Also Ask" (PAA) feature for the search queries "cochlear implant" and "cochlear implant surgery." The top 50 PAA questions for each query were conceptually classified. Sourced websites were evaluated for readability, transparency and information quality, and ability to answer the question. Readability and accuracy in answering questions were also compared to the responses from ChatGPT 3.5. RESULTS: The PAA questions were commonly related to technical details (21%), surgical factors (18%), and postoperative experiences (12%). Sourced websites mainly were from academic institutions, followed by commercial companies. Among all types of websites, readability, on average, did not meet the recommended standard for health-related patient education materials. Only two websites were at or below the 8th-grade level. Responses by ChatGPT had significantly poorer readability compared to the websites (p < 0.001). These online resources were not significantly different in the percentage of accurately answering the questions (websites: 78%, ChatGPT: 85%, p = 0.136). CONCLUSIONS: The most searched topics were technical details about devices, surgical factors, and the postoperative experience. Unfortunately, most websites did not meet the ideal criteria of readability, quality, and credibility for patient education. These results highlight potential knowledge gaps for patients, deficits in current online education materials, and possible tools to better support CI candidate decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2024.

Management of Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays Misplaced in the Internal Auditory Canal: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Misplacement of electrode arrays in the internal auditory canal (IAC) presents a unique clinical challenge. Speech recognition is limited for cochlear implant (CI) users with misplaced arrays, and there are risks with revision surgery including facial and/or cochlear nerve injury. DATABASES REVIEWED: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. METHODS: A literature search was performed from inception to September 2023. The search terms were designed to capture articles on misplaced arrays and the management options. Articles written in English that described cases of array misplacement into the IAC for children and adults were included. The level of evidence was assessed using Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine guidelines. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight cases of arrays misplaced in the IAC were identified. Thirteen (46%) were patients with incomplete partition type 3 (IP3), and 7 (25%) were patients with common cavity (CC) malformations. Most misplaced arrays were identified postoperatively (19 cases; 68%). Of these cases, 11 (58%) were managed with array removal. No facial nerve injuries were reported with revision surgery. Eight cases (42%) were left in place. Several underwent mapping procedures in an attempt improve the sound quality with the CI. CONCLUSION: Electrode array misplacement in the IAC is a rare complication that reportedly occurs predominately in cases with IP3 and CC malformations. Removal of misplaced arrays from the IAC reportedly has not been associated with facial nerve injuries. Cases identified with IAC misplacement postoperatively can potentially be managed with modified mapping techniques before proceeding with revision surgery.

Effect of Age and Unaided Acoustic Hearing on Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users' Ability to Distinguish Yes/No Statements and Questions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability to discriminate yes/no questions from statements in three groups of children: bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users, nontraditional CI users with aidable hearing preoperatively in the ear to be implanted, and controls with normal hearing. Half of the nontraditional CI users had sufficient postoperative acoustic hearing in the implanted ear to use electric-acoustic stimulation, and half used a CI alone. METHOD: Participants heard recorded sentences that were produced either as yes/no questions or as statements by three male and three female talkers. Three raters scored each participant response as either a question or a statement. Bilateral CI users (n = 40, 4-12 years old) and normal-hearing controls (n = 10, 4-12 years old) were tested binaurally in the free field. Nontraditional CI recipients (n = 22, 6-17 years old) were tested with direct audio input to the study ear. RESULTS: For the bilateral CI users, performance was predicted by age but not by 125-Hz acoustic thresholds; just under half (n = 17) of the participants in this group had measurable 125-Hz thresholds in their better ear. For nontraditional CI recipients, better performance was predicted by lower 125-Hz acoustic thresholds in the test ear, and there was no association with participant age. Performance approached that of the normal-hearing controls for some participants in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a 125-Hz acoustic hearing supports discrimination of yes/no questions and statements in pediatric CI users. Bilateral CI users with little or no acoustic hearing at 125 Hz develop the ability to perform this task, but that ability emerges later than for children with better acoustic hearing. These results underscore the importance of preserving acoustic hearing for pediatric CI users when possible.

Demographic Representation in Clinical Research Relative to a Cochlear Implant Patient Population.

OBJECTIVES: Research samples that are representative of patient populations are needed to ensure the generalizability of study findings. The primary aim was to assess the efficacy of a study design and recruitment strategy in obtaining a participant sample that was representative of the broader cochlear implant (CI) patient population at the CI center. A secondary aim was to review whether the CI recipient population was representative of the state population. METHODS: Demographic variables were compared for a research participant sample (n = 79) and the CI patient population (n = 338). The participant sample was recruited from the CI patient population. The study design included visits that were at the same location and frequency as the recommended clinical follow-up intervals. The demographics for the combined group (participant sample and patient population) were then compared to the reported demographics for the population in North Carolina. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the participant sample and patient population for biological sex, age at implantation, racial distribution, socioeconomic position, degree of urbanization, or drive time to the CI center (p ≥ 0.086). The combined CI recipient population was significantly different from the North Carolina population for the distributions of race, ethnicity, and degree of urbanization (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study design and recruitment strategy allowed for recruitment of a participant sample that was representative of the CI patient population. Disparities in access to cochlear implantation persist, as supported by the significant differences in the combined CI recipient population and the population for our state. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:4101-4110, 2024.

Long-Term Perceived Benefit of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users with Unilateral Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived benefit of cochlear implant (CI) use for children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) and evaluate whether perceived abilities are associated with performance on measures of speech recognition and spatial hearing. METHOD: Nineteen children with moderate-to-profound UHL underwent cochlear implantation. The Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Questionnaire modified for children (SSQ-C) were completed by parental proxy pre-operatively and at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post-activation. Linear mixed models evaluated perceived benefits over the study period. Pearson correlations assessed the association between subjective report and performance on measures of word recognition with the CI alone and spatial hearing (speech recognition in spatially-separated noise and sound source localization) in the combined condition (CI plus contralateral ear). RESULTS: For the SSQ-C, parents reported significant improvements with CI use as compared to pre-operative perceptions (p < 0.001); improved perceptions were either maintained or continued to improve over the 2-year post-activation period. Perceived benefit did not significantly correlate with word recognition with the CI alone or spatial hearing outcomes in the combined condition. CONCLUSION: Families of children with UHL observed benefits of CI use early after cochlear implantation that was maintained with long-term device use. Responses to subjective measures may broaden our understanding of the experiences of pediatric CI users with UHL in addition to outcomes on typical measures of CI performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:919-925, 2024.

Variables Affecting Cochlear Implant Performance After Loss of Residual Hearing.

OBJECTIVE: Determine variables that influence post-activation performance for cochlear implant (CI) recipients who lost low-frequency acoustic hearing. METHODS: A retrospective review evaluated CNC word recognition for adults with normal to moderately severe low-frequency hearing (preoperative unaided thresholds of ≤70 dB HL at 250 Hz) who were implanted between 2012 and 2021 at a tertiary academic center, lost functional acoustic hearing, and were fit with a CI-alone device. Performance scores were queried from the 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24-month post-activation visits. A linear mixed model evaluated the effects of age at implantation, array length (long vs. mid/short), and preoperative low-frequency hearing (normal to mild, moderate, and moderately severe) on speech recognition with a CI alone. RESULTS: 113 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant main effect of interval (p < 0.001), indicating improved word recognition post-activation despite loss of residual hearing. There were significant main effects of age (p = 0.029) and array length (p = 0.038), with no effect of preoperative low-frequency hearing (p = 0.171). There was a significant 2-way interaction between age and array length (p = 0.018), indicating that older adults with mid/short arrays performed more poorly than younger adults with long lateral wall arrays when functional acoustic hearing was lost. CONCLUSION: CI recipients with preoperative functional low-frequency hearing experience a significant improvement in speech recognition with a CI alone as compared to preoperative performance-despite the loss of low-frequency hearing. Age and electrode array length may play a role in post-activation performance. These data have implications for the preoperative counseling and device selection for hearing preservation candidates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:1868-1873, 2024.

Incidence of Cochlear Implant Electrode Contacts in the Functional Acoustic Hearing Region and the Influence on Speech Recognition with Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of electrode contacts within the functional acoustic hearing region in cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to assess its influence on speech recognition for electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: One hundred five CI recipients with functional acoustic hearing preservation (≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz). INTERVENTIONS: Cochlear implantation with a 24-, 28-, or 31.5-mm lateral wall electrode array. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Angular insertion depth (AID) of individual contacts was determined from imaging. Unaided acoustic thresholds and AID were used to calculate the proximity of contacts to the functional acoustic hearing region. The association between proximity values and speech recognition in quiet and noise for EAS users at 6 months postactivation was reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty percent of cases had one or more contacts within the functional acoustic hearing region. Proximity was not significantly associated with speech recognition in quiet. Better performance in noise was observed for cases with close correspondence between the most apical contact and the upper edge of residual hearing, with poorer results for increasing proximity values in either the basal or apical direction ( r14 = 0.48, p = 0.043; r18 = -0.41, p = 0.045, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was a high incidence of electrode contacts within the functional acoustic hearing region, which is not accounted for with default mapping procedures. The variability in outcomes across EAS users with default maps may be due in part to electric-on-acoustic interference, electric frequency-to-place mismatch, and/or failure to stimulate regions intermediate between the most apical electrode contact and the functional acoustic hearing region.

Comparison of Two Place-Based Mapping Procedures on Masked Sentence Recognition as a Function of Electrode Array Angular Insertion Depth and Presence of Acoustic Low-Frequency Information: A Simulation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implant (CI) and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users may experience better performance with maps that align the electric filter frequencies to the cochlear place frequencies, known as place-based maps, than with maps that present spectrally shifted information. Individual place-based mapping procedures differ in the frequency content that is aligned to cochlear tonotopicity versus discarded or spectrally shifted. The performance benefit with different place-based maps may vary due to individual differences in angular insertion depth (AID) of the electrode array and whether functional acoustic low-frequency information is available in the implanted ear. The present study compared masked speech recognition with two types of place-based maps as a function of AID and presence of acoustic low-frequency information. METHODS: Sixty adults with normal hearing listened acutely to CI or EAS simulations of two types of place-based maps for one of three cases of electrode arrays at shallow AIDs. The strict place-based (Strict-PB) map aligned the low- and mid-frequency information to cochlear tonotopicity and discarded information below the frequency associated with the most apical electrode contact. The alternative place-based map (LFshift-PB) aligned the mid-frequency information to cochlear tonotopicity and provided more of the speech spectrum by compressing low-frequency information on the apical electrode contacts (i.e., <1 kHz). Three actual cases of a 12-channel, 24-mm electrode array were simulated by assigning the carrier frequency for an individual channel as the cochlear place frequency of the associated electrode contact. The AID and cochlear place frequency for the most apical electrode contact were 460° and 498 Hz for case 1, 389° and 728 Hz for case 2, and 335° and 987 Hz for case 3, respectively. RESULTS: Generally, better performance was observed with the Strict-PB maps for cases 1 and 2, where mismatches were 2-4 octaves for the most apical channel with the LFshift-PB map. Similar performance was observed between maps for case 3. For the CI simulations, performance with the Strict-PB map declined with decreases in AID, while performance with the LFshift-PB map remained stable across cases. For the EAS simulations, performance with the Strict-PB map remained stable across cases, while performance with the LFshift-PB map improved with decreases in AID. CONCLUSIONS: Listeners demonstrated differences with the Strict-PB versus LFshift-PB maps as a function of AID and whether acoustic low-frequency information was available (CI vs. EAS). These data support the use of the Strict-PB mapping procedure for AIDs ≥335°, though further study including time for acclimatization in CI and EAS users is warranted.

Factors that influence outcomes and device use for pediatric cochlear implant recipients with unilateral hearing loss.

Introduction: Candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation in the United States has expanded to include children with single-sided deafness (SSD) who are at least 5 years of age. Pediatric cochlear implant (CI) users with SSD experience improved speech recognition with increased daily device use. There are few studies that report the hearing hour percentage (HHP) or the incidence of non-use for pediatric CI recipients with SSD. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that impact outcomes in children with SSD who use CIs. A secondary aim was to identify factors that impact daily device use in this population. Methods: A clinical database query revealed 97 pediatric CI recipients with SSD who underwent implantation between 2014 and 2022 and had records of datalogs. The clinical test battery included speech recognition assessment for CNC words with the CI-alone and BKB-SIN with the CI plus the normal-hearing ear (combined condition). The target and masker for the BKB-SIN were presented in collocated and spatially separated conditions to evaluate spatial release from masking (SRM). Linear mixed-effects models evaluated the influence of time since activation, duration of deafness, HHP, and age at activation on performance (CNC and SRM). A separate linear mixed-effects model evaluated the main effects of age at testing, time since activation, duration of deafness, and onset of deafness (stable, progressive, or sudden) on HHP. Results: Longer time since activation, shorter duration of deafness, and higher HHP were significantly correlated with better CNC word scores. Younger age at device activation was not found to be a significant predictor of CNC outcomes. There was a significant relationship between HHP and SRM, with children who had higher HHP experiencing greater SRM. There was a significant negative correlation between time since activation and age at test with HHP. Children with sudden hearing loss had a higher HHP than children with progressive and congenital hearing losses. Conclusion: The present data presented here do not support a cut-off age or duration of deafness for pediatric cochlear implantation in cases of SSD. Instead, they expand on our understanding of the benefits of CI use in this population by reviewing the factors that influence outcomes in this growing patient population. Higher HHP, or greater percentage of time spent each day using bilateral input, was associated with better outcomes in the CI-alone and in the combined condition. Younger children and those within the first months of use had higher HHP. Clinicians should discuss these factors and how they may influence CI outcomes with potential candidates with SSD and their families. Ongoing work is investigating the long-term outcomes in this patient population, including whether increasing HHP after a period of limited CI use results in improved outcomes.

Influence of the Frequency-to-Place Function on Recognition with Place-Based Cochlear Implant Maps.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of acute speech recognition for cochlear implant (CI) alone and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users listening with default maps or place-based maps using either a spiral ganglion (SG) or a new Synchrotron Radiation-Artificial Intelligence (SR-AI) frequency-to-place function. METHODS: Thirteen adult CI-alone or EAS users completed a task of speech recognition at initial device activation with maps that differed in the electric filter frequency assignments. The three map conditions were: (1) maps with the default filter settings (default map), (2) place-based maps with filters aligned to cochlear SG tonotopicity using the SG function (SG place-based map), and (3) place-based maps with filters aligned to cochlear Organ of Corti (OC) tonotopicity using the SR-AI function (SR-AI place-based map). Speech recognition was evaluated using a vowel recognition task. Performance was scored as the percent correct for formant 1 recognition due to the rationale that the maps would deviate the most in the estimated cochlear place frequency for low frequencies. RESULTS: On average, participants had better performance with the OC SR-AI place-based map as compared to the SG place-based map and the default map. A larger performance benefit was observed for EAS users than for CI-alone users. CONCLUSION: These pilot data suggest that EAS and CI-alone users may experience better performance with a patient-centered mapping approach that accounts for the variability in cochlear morphology (OC SR-AI frequency-to-place function) in the individualization of the electric filter frequencies (place-based mapping procedure). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 133:3540-3547, 2023.

Two-Year Outcomes of Cochlear Implant Use for Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss: Benefits and Comparison to Children With Normal Hearing.

OBJECTIVES: Children with severe-to-profound unilateral hearing loss, including cases of single-sided deafness (SSD), lack access to binaural cues that support spatial hearing, such as recognizing speech in complex multisource environments and sound source localization. Listening in a monaural condition negatively impacts communication, learning, and quality of life for children with SSD. Cochlear implant (CI) use may restore binaural hearing abilities and improve outcomes as compared to alternative treatments or no treatment. This study investigated performance over 24 months of CI use in young children with SSD as compared to the better hearing ear alone and to children with bilateral normal hearing (NH). DESIGN: Eighteen children with SSD who received a CI between the ages of 3.5 and 6.5 years as part of a prospective clinical trial completed assessments of word recognition in quiet, masked sentence recognition, and sound source localization at regular intervals out to 24-month postactivation. Eighteen peers with bilateral NH, matched by age at the group level, completed the same test battery. Performance at 24-month postactivation for the SSD group was compared to the performance of the NH group. RESULTS: Children with SSD have significantly poorer speech recognition in quiet, masked sentence recognition, and localization both with and without the use of the CI than their peers with NH. The SSD group experienced significant benefits with the CI+NH versus the NH ear alone on measures of isolated word recognition, masked sentence recognition, and localization. These benefits were realized within the first 3 months of use and were maintained through the 24-month postactivation interval. CONCLUSIONS: Young children with SSD who use a CI experience significant isolated word recognition and bilateral spatial hearing benefits, although their performance remains poorer than their peers with NH.

Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Adults With Single-Sided Deafness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) who underwent cochlear implantation. DATABASES REVIEWED: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from January 2008 to September 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: Studies reporting spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients (≥18 yr old) with SSD were evaluated. Study characteristics, demographic data, spatial hearing (speech recognition in noise, sound source localization), tinnitus (severity, loudness), and quality-of-life outcomes were collected. RESULTS: From an initial search of 1,147 articles, 36 studies that evaluated CI use in 796 unique adults with SSD (51.3 ± 12.4 yr of age at time of implantation) were included. The mean duration of deafness was 6.2 ± 9.6 years. There was evidence of improvement for speech recognition in noise using different target-to-masker spatial configurations, with the largest benefit observed for target-to-masker configurations assessing head shadow (mean, 1.87-6.2 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Sound source localization, quantified as root-mean-squared error, improved with CI use (mean difference [MD], -25.3 degrees; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -35.9 to -14.6 degrees; p < 0.001). Also, CI users reported a significant reduction in tinnitus severity as measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (MD, -29.97; 95% CI, -43.9 to -16.1; p < 0.001) and an improvement in spatial hearing abilities as measured with the Spatial, Speech, and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire (MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implantation and CI use consistently offer improvements in speech recognition in noise, sound source localization, tinnitus, and perceived quality of life in adults with SSD.

Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users.

PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with hearing preservation experience significant improvements in speech recognition with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) as compared to with a CI alone, although outcomes across EAS users vary. The individual differences in performance may be due in part to default mapping procedures, which result in electric frequency-to-place mismatches for the majority of EAS users. This study assessed the influence of electric mismatches on the early speech recognition for EAS users. METHOD: Twenty-one participants were randomized at EAS activation to listen exclusively with a default or place-based map. For both groups, the unaided thresholds determined the acoustic cutoff frequency (i.e., > 65 dB HL). For default maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid spectral gaps in frequency information but created varying magnitudes of mismatches. For place-based maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid frequency-to-place mismatches. Recognition of consonant-nucleus-consonant words and vowels was assessed at activation and 1, 3, and 6 months postactivation. RESULTS: For participants with default maps, electric mismatch at 1500 Hz ranged from 2 to -12.0 semitones (Mdn = -5 semitones). Poorer performance was observed for those with larger magnitudes of electric mismatch. This effect was observed through 6 months of EAS listening experience. CONCLUSIONS: The present sample of EAS users experienced better initial performance when electric mismatches were small or eliminated. These data suggest the utility of methods that reduce electric mismatches, such as place-based mapping procedures. Investigation is ongoing to determine whether these differences persist with long-term EAS use. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22096523.

Cochlear Implantation for Unilateral and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Long-Term Subjective Benefit.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the long-term patterns of perceived tinnitus severity and subjective benefit for adult cochlear implant (CI) users with asymmetric or unilateral hearing loss (AHL or UHL). METHODS: Forty adults underwent cochlear implantation as part of a prospective clinical trial assessing the outcomes of CI use in cases of AHL (n = 20) and UHL (n = 20). Subjective measures included the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), the Speech, Spatial, & Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Responses were obtained preoperatively and at routine intervals out to 5 years post-activation. RESULTS: For subjective benefit, participants with AHL and UHL reported a significant improvement as compared to preoperative abilities, which was maintained with long-term CI use. For perceived tinnitus severity, participants with AHL and UHL reported a significant reduction with CI use as compared to preoperative perceptions. The perceived tinnitus severity significantly differed for the AHL and UHL cohorts over time. This pattern of results is likely influenced by the worse perceived severity levels for the UHL cohort preoperatively and the fluctuating perceived severity levels for some participants in the AHL cohort post-activation. CONCLUSION: Adults with AHL and UHL report an early, significant reduction in perceived tinnitus severity and improvement in quality of life with CI use that is generally maintained with long-term device use. Questionnaires such as the THI, SSQ, and APHAB may contribute to a more holistic assessment of the benefits of cochlear implantation in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 133:2792-2797, 2023.

Hearing health care access for adult cochlear implant candidates and recipients: Travel time and socioeconomic status.

Objectives: Access to cochlear implantation may be negatively influenced by extended travel time to a cochlear implant (CI) center or lower socioeconomic status (SES) for the individual. There is a critical need to understand the influence of these variables on patient appointment attendance for candidacy evaluations, and CI recipients' adherence to post-activation follow-up recommendations that support optimal outcomes. Methods: A retrospective chart review of adult patients referred to a CI center in North Carolina for initial cochlear implantation candidacy evaluation between April 2017 and July 2019 was conducted. Demographic and audiologic data were collected for each patient. Travel time was determined using geocoding. SES was proxied using ZCTA-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) information. Independent samples t tests compared variables between those who did and did not attend the candidacy evaluation. Pearson correlations assessed the association of these variables and the duration of time between initial CI activation and return for first follow-up visit. Results: Three hundred and ninety patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a statistically significant difference between SDI of those who attended their candidacy evaluation versus those who did not. Age at referral or travel time did not show statistical significance between these two groups. There was no significant correlation with age at referral, travel time, or SDI with the duration of time (days) between initial activation and the 1-month follow-up. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that SES may influence a patient's ability to attend a cochlear implantation candidacy evaluation appointment and may further impact the decision to pursue cochlear implantation.Level of evidence: 4 - Case Series.

Long-Term Binaural Hearing Improvements for Cochlear Implant Users with Asymmetric Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term binaural hearing abilities for cochlear implant (CI) users with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal, repeated measures study was completed at a tertiary referral center evaluating adults with UHL or AHL undergoing cochlear implantation. Binaural hearing abilities were assessed with masked speech recognition tasks using AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker. Performance was evaluated as the ability to benefit from spatial release from masking (SRM). SRM was calculated as the difference in scores when the masker was presented toward the CI-ear (SRMci ) or the contralateral ear (SRMcontra ) relative to the co-located condition (0°). Assessments were completed pre-operatively and at annual intervals out to 5 years post-activation. RESULTS: Twenty UHL and 19 AHL participants were included in the study. Linear Mixed Models showed significant main effects of interval and group for SRMcontra . There was a significant interaction between interval and group, with UHL participants reaching asymptotic performance early and AHL participants demonstrating continued growth in binaural abilities to 5 years post-activation. The improvement in SRM showed a significant positive correlation with contralateral unaided hearing thresholds (p = 0.050) as well as age at implantation (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: CI recipients with UHL and AHL showed improved SRM with long-term device use. The time course of improvement varied by cohort, with the UHL cohort reaching asymptotic performance early and the AHL cohort continuing to improve beyond 1 year. Differences between cohorts could be driven by differences in age at implantation as well as contralateral unaided hearing thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 133:1480-1485, 2023.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Clinical Assessment and Management of Adult Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness.

The indications for cochlear implantation have expanded to include individuals with profound sensorineural hearing loss in the impaired ear and normal hearing (NH) in the contralateral ear, known as single-sided deafness (SSD). There are additional considerations for the clinical assessment and management of adult cochlear implant candidates and recipients with SSD as compared to conventional cochlear implant candidates with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The present report reviews the current evidence relevant to the assessment and management of adults with SSD. A systematic review was also conducted on published studies that investigated outcomes of cochlear implant use on measures of speech recognition in quiet and noise, sound source localization, tinnitus perception, and quality of life for this patient population. Expert consensus and systematic review of the current literature were combined to provide guidance for the clinical assessment and management of adults with SSD.

Cochlear implantation for paediatric and adult cases of unilateral and asymmetric hearing loss.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Children and adults with unilateral or asymmetric hearing loss (UHL/AHL) have poorer spatial hearing (e.g. speech understanding in complex maskers and localization) and quality of life compared with peers with normal hearing bilaterally. Patients with UHL/AHL experience limited benefits with contralateral-routing technologies (e.g. bone conduction, CROS hearing aid systems). Cochlear implantation allows for stimulation of the auditory pathway for the poorer hearing ear. The present study reviews the recent literature on outcomes of cochlear implant use for recipients with UHL/AHL. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent research corroborates previous investigations of the significant benefits on measures of spatial hearing, tinnitus severity and quality of life for adult cochlear implant recipients. These benefits are also observed in pediatric cochlear implant recipients, with an association of better outcomes with younger ages at implantation for congenital cases and shorter durations of UHL/AHL for acquired cases. In addition, randomized trials demonstrate better outcomes with cochlear implant use versus contralateral-routing technologies. SUMMARY: Cochlear implantation supports better spatial hearing and quality of life in children and adults with UHL/AHL as compared to alternative listening conditions. Current research supports the expansion of candidacy criteria and insurance coverage for cochlear implantation for patients with UHL/AHL to improve their binaural hearing.