Estimating Real-World Performance of Percutaneously Coupled Bone-Conduction Device Users With Severe-to-Profound Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Purpose The bone-conduction device attached to a percutaneous screw (BCD) is an important treatment option for individuals with severe-to-profound unilateral hearing loss (UHL). Clinicians may use subjective questionnaires and speech-in-noise measures to evaluate BCD use in this patient population; however, the translation of these metrics to real-world aided performance is unclear. The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to measure speech-in-noise performance in BCD users with severe-to-profound UHL in a simulated real-world environment, relative to individuals with normal hearing bilaterally; second, to determine if BCD users' subjective reports of aided performance relate to simulated real-world performance. Method A between-subjects design with two groups was conducted with 14 adults with severe-to-profound UHL (BCD group) and 10 age-matched participants with normal hearing bilaterally (control group). Speech-in-noise tests were administered in an eight-speaker R-Space simulating a real-world environment. To further explore speech-in-noise evaluation methods for this population, testing was also completed in a clinically common two-speaker array. The effects of various microphone settings on performance were explored for BCD users. Subjective performance was measured with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox & Alexander, 1995) and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (Gatehouse & Noble, 2004). Statistical analyses to explore relationships between variables included repeated-measures analysis of variance, regression analyses, independent-samples t tests, nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests, and correlations. Results In the simulated real-world environment, BCD group participants struggled with speech-in-noise understanding compared to control group participants. BCD benefit was observed for all microphone settings when speech stimuli were presented to the side with the BCD. When adaptive directional or fixed directional microphone settings were used, a relationship was noted between simulated real-world speech-in-noise performance for speech stimuli presented to the side with the BCD and subjective reports on the Background Noise subscale of the APHAB. Conclusions The Background Noise subscale of the APHAB may help estimate real-world speech-in-noise performance for BCD users with severe-to-profound UHL for signals of interest presented to the implanted side, specifically when adaptive or fixed directional microphone settings are used. This subscale may provide an efficient and accessible alternative to assessing real-world speech-in-noise performance in lieu of less clinically available measurement tools, such as an R-Space.

Performance on the standard and hearing-impaired Montreal Cognitive Assessment in cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVES: Commonly used cognitive screening tools were not originally developed for patients with hearing loss (HL) and rely heavily on the ability to hear the instructions and test stimuli. Recently, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was modified for use with hearing-impaired populations (ie, HI-MoCA). In order to investigate the clinical utility of the HI-MoCA, we assessed performance between the standard MoCA and HI-MoCA among postlingually deafened cochlear implant (CI) users. METHODS: We administered the standard MoCA and HI-MoCA to 21 CI users and compared their performance. We assessed differences in pass/fail status when items from the attention and language sections and the delayed recall task were removed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in performance between the standard MoCA and HI-MoCA. Participants scored higher on both test versions when the delayed recall task was removed. Participants also performed better on the delayed recall task on the HI-MoCA than on the standard MoCA. CONCLUSIONS: While our findings suggest that the modality of presentation for the MoCA does not influence overall performance for postlingually deafened CI users, visual presentation of stimuli impacted performance on delayed recall. Furthermore, irrespective of presentation modality, our participants scored higher on both MoCA versions when the delayed recall task was removed. Clinically, modifications to the presentation of the MoCA might not be necessary for CI users; however, clinicians should be aware that the delayed recall task is inherently harder for these patients.