Pharmacology update: pamidronate for hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy in palliative care.

Hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy (HPOA) is a rare syndrome that causes clubbed fingers, periostitis, and synovial effusions. It can adversely impact a patient's quality of life. It occurs secondary to pulmonary disease - most commonly pulmonary malignancy. The most effective treatment for HPOA is to treat the underlying disease, usually through surgical resection, chemotherapy, or radiation. However, symptomatic treatments rather than definitive treatments (surgical, chemotherapy, or radiation) are more appropriate for the palliative care patient. Pamidronate is a promising medication for the treatment of HPOA for its safety and rapid onset of action. Further research is indicated to determine whether pamidronate is consistently effective.

Hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy (HPOA) is a rare syndrome that causes pain in the long bones and typical changes in the fingers, called 'clubbing'. It can adversely impact a patient's quality of life and occur secondary to lung disease ­ most commonly pulmonary cancers. The most effective treatment for HPOA is to treat the underlying disease, usually through surgical removal, chemotherapy, or radiation. However, treating the symptoms is often appropriate for the palliative care patient. Pamidronate is a promising medication for the treatment of HPOA for its safety and rapid onset of action. Further research is indicated to determine whether pamidronate is consistently effective.

Nucleus Hybrid S12: Multicenter Clinical Trial Results.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The use of a short 10-mm/10-electrode cochlear implant to preserve low-frequency residual hearing was investigated. This report describes the 12-month outcomes of this multicenter clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Single-subject design. METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects with low-frequency hearing at or better than 60 dB HL at 500 Hz and severe high-frequency hearing loss were implanted with a Nucleus Hybrid S12 implant in their poorer ear. Speech perception in quiet using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) words and sentences in noise using AzBio sentences was collected pre- and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months. Subjective reporting using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) questionnaire was also collected pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: Functional hearing preservation was accomplished in 96% of subjects. At 3 and 6 months, 86% of the 28 subjects had maintained functional hearing. By 12 months, 23 out of 27 subjects (85%) had maintained functional hearing (one subject with functional hearing at 6 months withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month visit). Speech perception results demonstrated that 81% of the participants on CNC words and 77% with AzBio sentences in noise had significant improvements using their everyday listening condition at 12 months compared to preoperative performance with bilateral hearing aids. Furthermore, preoperative to 12 months postoperative subjective ratings showed significant improvements for the SSQ. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a high degree of hearing preservation enabling acoustic-electric hearing and improvement in speech understanding in quiet and in noise can be accomplished using a short-electrode 10-mm cochlear implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c Laryngoscope, 130:E548-E558, 2020.

Hybrid Music Perception Outcomes: Implications for Melody and Timbre Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether or not electric-acoustic music perception outcomes, observed in a recent Hybrid L24 clinical trial, were related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic cues not present in the electric domain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, repeated-measures, within-subject design. SETTING: Academic research hospital. SUBJECTS: Nine normally hearing individuals. INTERVENTION: Simulated electric-acoustic hearing in normally hearing individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Acutely measured melody and timbre recognition scores from the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (CAMP) test. RESULTS: Melody recognition scores were consistently better for listening conditions that included low-frequency acoustic information. Mean scores for both acoustic (73.5%, S.D. = 15.5%) and electric-acoustic (67.9%, S.D. = 21.2%) conditions were significantly better (p < 0.001) than electric alone (39.2%, S.D. = 18.1%). This was not the case for timbre recognition for which scores were more variable across simulated listening modes with no significant differences found in mean scores across electric (36.1%, S.D. = 17.7%), acoustic (38.0%, S.D. = 20.4%), and electric-acoustic (40.7%, S.D. = 19.7%) conditions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Recipients of hybrid cochlear implants demonstrate music perception abilities superior to those observed in traditional cochlear implant recipients. Results from the present study support the notion that electric-acoustic stimulation confers advantages related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic hearing, most particularly for melody recognition. However, timbre recognition remains more limited for both hybrid and traditional cochlear implant users. Opportunities remain for new coding strategies to improve timbre perception.

Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the long-term benefits of implantation in patients with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, this report provides 5-year follow-up on a group of implant recipients who were subjects of the Cochlear™ Nucleus® Hybrid™ L24 Implant System pivotal clinical study. METHODS: The results of three related clinical studies were compiled to provide outcome data after 1, 3, and 5 years of implant use in a group of subjects who presented with preoperative high-frequency hearing loss and were implanted with a Nucleus Hybrid L24 (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia) cochlear implant. A subset of the 50 adult subjects (N = 32) who participated in the Hybrid L24 pivotal Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) completed comprehensive evaluations at 12 months postactivation, 3 years postactivation, and then as part of a postapproval study at 5 years postactivation. Testing included audiometric, speech perception, and subjective satisfaction measures. RESULTS: Mean unilateral speech perception performance was significantly improved at all postoperative intervals compared to preoperative best-aided results and has remained stable to 5 years postactivation. Ninety-four percent of subjects had measurable hearing, and 72% continued to use electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear after 5 years of implant use. Subjective satisfaction results support objective performance improvements. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate long-term success of patients with high-frequency hearing loss following Hybrid L24 (Cochlear) cochlear implantation. Benefits include speech perception abilities significantly better than those in the preoperative best-aided condition, with additional benefit in those using electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. Laryngoscope, 1939-1945, 2018.

Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The concept of expanding electrical speech processing to those with more residual acoustic hearing with a less-invasive shorter cochlear implant (CI) has been ongoing since 1999. A multicenter study of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 CI took place between 2002 and 2011. This report describes the final outcomes of this clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, longitudinal, single-subject design. METHODS: Eighty-seven subjects received a Nucleus Hybrid S8 CI in their poorer ear. Speech perception in quiet (Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant [CNC] words) and in noise (Bamford-Kowal-Bench Sentences-In-Noise [BKB-SIN]) were collected pre- and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months. Subjective questionnaire data using the Abbreviated Profile for Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) were also collected. RESULTS: Some level of hearing preservation was accomplished in 98% subjects, with 90% maintaining a functional low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) at initial activation. By 12 months, five subjects had total hearing loss, and 80% of subjects maintained functional hearing. CNC words demonstrated that 82.5% and 87.5% of subjects had significant improvements in the hybrid and combined conditions, respectively. The majority had improvements with BKB-SIN. Results also indicated that as long as subjects maintained at least a severe LFPTA, there was significant improvement in speech understanding. Furthermore, all subjects reported positive improvements in hearing in three of the four subscales of the APHAB. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of hybrid speech processing has significant advantages for subjects with residual low-frequency hearing. In this study, the Nucleus Hybrid S8 provided improved word understanding in quiet and noise. Additionally, there appears to be stability of the residual hearing after initial activation of the device. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.

United States multicenter clinical trial of the cochlear nucleus hybrid implant system.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of acoustic and electric sound processing for individuals with significant residual low-frequency hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-arm repeated measures, single-subject design. METHODS: Fifty individuals, ≥ 18 years old, with low-frequency hearing and severe high-frequency loss were implanted with the Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid L24 implant at 10 investigational sites. Preoperatively, subjects demonstrated consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores of 10% through 60% in the ear to be implanted. Subjects were assessed prospectively, preoperatively, and postoperatively on coprimary endpoints of consonant-nucleus-consonant words, AzBio sentences in noise, and self-assessment measures. RESULTS: Significant mean improvements were observed for coprimary endpoints: consonant-nucleus-consonant words (35.8 percentage points) and AzBio sentences in noise (32.0 percentage points), both at P < 0.001. Ninety-six percent of subjects performed equal or better on speech in quiet and 90% in noise. Eighty-two percent of subjects showed improved performance on speech in quiet and 74% in noise. Self-assessments were positive, corroborating speech perception results. CONCLUSION: The Nucleus Hybrid System provides significant improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and noise for individuals with severe high-frequency loss and some low-frequency hearing. This device expands indications to hearing-impaired individuals who perform poorly with amplification due to bilateral high-frequency hearing loss and who previously were not implant candidates.

Effects of input processing and type of personal frequency modulation system on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition in quiet and in noise for cochlear implant recipients using two different types of personal frequency modulation (FM) systems (directly coupled [direct auditory input] versus induction neckloop) with each of two sound processors (Cochlear Nucleus Freedom versus Cochlear Nucleus 5). Two different experiments were conducted within this study. In both these experiments, mixing of the FM signal within the Freedom processor was implemented via the same scheme used clinically for the Freedom sound processor. In Experiment 1, the aforementioned comparisons were conducted with the Nucleus 5 programmed so that the microphone and FM signals were mixed and then the mixed signals were subjected to autosensitivity control (ASC). In Experiment 2, comparisons between the two FM systems and processors were conducted again with the Nucleus 5 programmed to provide a more complex multistage implementation of ASC during the preprocessing stage. DESIGN: This study was a within-subject, repeated-measures design. Subjects were recruited from the patient population at the Hearts for Hearing Foundation in Oklahoma City, OK. Fifteen subjects participated in Experiment 1, and 16 subjects participated in Experiment 2. Subjects were adults who had used either unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants for at least 1 year. RESULTS: In this experiment, no differences were found in speech recognition in quiet obtained with the two different FM systems or the various sound-processor conditions. With each sound processor, speech recognition in noise was better with the directly coupled direct auditory input system relative to the neckloop system. The multistage ASC processing of the Nucleus 5 sound processor provided better performance than the single-stage approach for the Nucleus 5 and the Nucleus Freedom sound processor. CONCLUSIONS: Speech recognition in noise is substantially affected by the type of sound processor, FM system, and implementation of ASC used by a Cochlear implant recipient.

Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research shows that cochlear implant users experience significant difficulty with speech perception in noisy listening situations. There is a paucity of research evaluating the potential improvement in speech recognition in noise provided by a dual-microphone directional system in a commercial implant sound processor. The primary objective of this study was to compare speech recognition in quiet and in noise for the Nucleus Freedom and Nucleus 5 CP810 sound processors set to the manufacturer's default user programs for quiet and noisy environments. RESEARCH DESIGN: Crossover with repeated-measures design. SETTING: This multi-center study was conducted across four cochlear implant clinics in the United States. PATIENTS: Thirty-five adults with unilateral Nucleus Freedom cochlear implants. All subjects had used their cochlear implant for at least 6 months and had substantial open-set word recognition as evidenced by a score of at least 40% correct on the Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) monosyllabic word recognition test in quiet. INTERVENTION: All subjects (previous users of the Nucleus Freedom sound processor) were fitted with the Nucleus 5 sound processor. Performance was assessed while these subjects used each sound processor in the default user program the manufacturer recommends for quiet and noisy conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech recognition was assessed with CNC monosyllabic words in quiet and sentences in noise from the BKB-SIN (Bamford-Kowal-Bench Sentences in Noise) test. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and performance with each processor in each listening condition was compared using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Word recognition in quiet was significantly better with the Nucleus 5 sound processor when compared to performance with the Nucleus Freedom processor. In noise, the Nucleus 5 sound processor also provided a significant improvement in speech recognition relative to the performance with the Nucleus Freedom. CONCLUSION: The results of the study suggest that the Nucleus 5 sound processor provides significantly better speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared with performance with the Nucleus Freedom processor.

An attempt to improve bilateral cochlear implants by increasing the distance between electrodes and providing complementary information to the two ears.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation was to determine if adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients could benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum was interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. DESIGN: Two separate experiments were conducted. In both experiments, subjects were tested using a control speech processing strategy and a strategy in which the full input spectrum was filtered so that only the output of half of the filters was audible to one implant, while the output of the alternative filters was audible to the other implant. The filters were interleaved in a way that created alternate frequency "holes" between the two cochlear implants. RESULTS: In experiment one, four subjects were tested on consonant recognition. Results indicated that one of the four subjects performed better with the interleaved strategy, one subject received a binaural advantage with the interleaved strategy that they did not receive with the control strategy, and two subjects showed no decrement in performance when using the interleaved strategy. In the second experiment, 11 subjects were tested on word recognition, sentences in noise, and localization (it should be noted that not all subjects participated in all tests). Results showed that for speech perception testing one subject achieved significantly better scores with the interleaved strategy on all tests, and seven subjects showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy on at least one test. Only one subject showed a decrement in performance on all speech perception tests with the interleaved strategy. Out of nine subjects, one subject preferred the sound quality of the interleaved strategy. No one performed better on localization with the interleaved strategy. CONCLUSION: Data from this study indicate that some adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients can benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum is interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. It is possible that the subjects in this study who showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy did so because of less channel interaction; however, this hypothesis was not directly tested.

Spatial hearing and speech intelligibility in bilateral cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVE: The abilities to localize sounds and segregate speech from interfering sounds in a complex auditory environment were studied in a group of adults who use bilateral cochlear implants. The first aim of the study was to investigate the change in speech intelligibility under bilateral and unilateral listening modes as a function of bilateral experience during the first 6 mo of activation. The second aim was to look at whether localization and speech intelligibility in the presence of interfering speech are correlated and if the relationship is specific to the bilateral listening mode. The third aim was to examine whether sound lateralization (right versus left) emerges before sound localization within a hemifield. DESIGN: Participants were 17 native English speaking adults with postlingual deafness. All subjects received the Nucleus 24 Contour implant in both ears, either during the same surgery or during two separate surgeries that were no more than 1 mo apart. Both devices for each subject were activated at the same time, regardless of surgical approach. Speech intelligibility was measured at 3 and 6 mo after activation. Target speech was presented at 0 degrees in front. Testing was conducted in quiet and in the presence of four-talker babble. The babble was located on the right, on the left, or in front (colocated with the target). Sound localization abilities were measured at the 3 mo interval. All testing was conducted under three listening modes: left ear alone, right ear alone, or bilateral. RESULTS: On the speech-in-babble task, benefit of listening with two ears compared with one was greater when going from 3 to 6 mo of experience. This was evident when the target speech and interfering speech were spatially separated, but not when they were presented from the same location. At 3 mo postactivation of bilateral hearing, 82% of subjects demonstrated bilateral benefit when right/left discrimination was evaluated. In contrast, 47% of subjects showed a bilateral benefit when sound localization was evaluated, suggesting that directional hearing might emerge in a two-step process beginning with discrimination and converging on more fine-grained localization. The bilateral speech intelligibility scores were positively correlated with sound localization abilities, so that listeners who were better able to hear speech in babble were generally better able to identify source locations. CONCLUSIONS: During the early stages of bilateral hearing through cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adults, there is an early emergence of spatial hearing skills. Although nearly all subjects can discriminate source locations to the right versus left, less than half are able to perform the more difficult task of identifying source locations in a multispeaker array. Benefits for speech intelligibility with one versus two implants improve with time, in particular when spatial cues are used to segregate speech and competing noise. Localization and speech-in-noise abilities in this group of patients are somewhat correlated.

Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results.

Acoustic plus electric (electric-acoustic) speech processing has been successful in highlighting the important role of articulation information in consonant recognition in those adults that have profound high-frequency hearing loss at frequencies greater than 1500 Hz and less than 60% discrimination scores. Eighty-seven subjects were enrolled in an adult Hybrid multicenter Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Immediate hearing preservation was accomplished in 85/87 subjects. Over time (3 months to 5 years), some hearing preservation was maintained in 91% of the group. Combined electric-acoustic processing enabled most of this group of volunteers to gain improved speech understanding, compared to their preoperative hearing, with bilateral hearing aids. Most have preservation of low-frequency acoustic hearing within 15 dB of their preoperative pure tone levels. Those with greater losses (>30 dB) also benefited from the combination of electric-acoustic speech processing. Postoperatively, in the electric-acoustic processing condition, loss of low-frequency hearing did not correlate with improvements in speech perception scores in quiet. Sixteen subjects were identified as poor performers in that they did not achieve a significant improvement through electric-acoustic processing. A multiple regression analysis determined that 91% of the variance in the poorly performing group can be explained by the preoperative speech recognition score and duration of deafness. Signal-to-noise ratios for speech understanding in noise improved more than 9 dB in some individuals in the electric-acoustic processing condition. The relation between speech understanding in noise thresholds and residual low-frequency acoustic hearing is significant (r = 0.62; p < 0.05). The data suggest that, in general, the advantages gained for speech recognition in noise by preserving residual hearing exist, unless the hearing loss approaches profound levels. Preservation of residual low-frequency hearing should be considered when expanding candidate selection criteria for standard cochlear implants. Duration of profound high-frequency hearing loss appears to be an important variable when determining selection criteria for the Hybrid implant.

Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials in which children received bilateral cochlear implants in sequential operations were conducted to analyze the extent to which bilateral implantation offers benefits on a number of measures. The present investigation was particularly focused on measuring the effects of age at implantation and experience after activation of the second implant on speech perception performance. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty children aged 3 to 13 years were recipients of 2 cochlear implants, received in sequential operations, a minimum of 6 months apart. All children received their first implant before 5 years of age and had acquired speech perception capabilities with the first device. They were divided into 3 age groups on the basis of age at time of second ear implantation: Group I, 3 to 5 years; Group II, 5.1 to 8 years; and Group III, 8.1 to 13 years. Speech perception measures in quiet included the Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test (MLNT) for Group I, the Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT) for Groups II and III, and the Hearing In Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) sentences in quiet for Group III. Speech perception in noise was assessed using the Children's Realistic Intelligibility and Speech Perception (CRISP) test. Testing was performed preoperatively and again postactivation of the second implant at 3, 6, and 12 months (CRISP at 3 and 9 mo) in both the unilateral and bilateral conditions in a repeated-measures study design. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze statistical significance among device configurations and performance over time. SETTING: US Multicenter. RESULTS: Results for speech perception in quiet show that children implanted sequentially acquire open-set speech perception in the second ear relatively quickly (within 6 mo). However, children younger than 8 years do so more rapidly and to a higher level of speech perception ability at 12 months than older children (mean second ear MLNT/LNT scores at 12 months: Group I, 83.9%; range, 71-96%; Group II, 59.5%; range, 40-88%; Group III, 32%; range, 12-56%). The second-ear mean HINT-C score for Group III children remained far less than that of the first ear even after 12 months of device use (44 versus 89%; t, 6.48; p<0.001; critical value, 0.025). Speech intelligibility for spondees in noise was significantly better under bilateral conditions than with either ear alone when all children were analyzed as a single group and for Group III children. At the 9-month test interval, performance in the bilateral configuration was significantly better for all noise conditions (13.2% better for noise at first cochlear implant, 6.8% better for the noise front and noise at second cochlear implant conditions, t=2.32, p=0.024, critical level=0.05 for noise front; t=3.75, p<0.0001, critical level=0.05 for noise at first implant; t=2.73, p = 0.008, critical level=0.05 for noise at second implant side). The bilateral benefit in noise increased with time from 3 to 9 months after activation of the second implant. This bilateral advantage is greatest when noise is directed toward the first implanted ear, indicating that the head shadow effect is the most effective binaural mechanism. The bilateral condition produced small improvements in speech perception in quiet and for individual Group I and Group II patient results in noise that, in view of the relatively small number of subjects tested, do not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children of diverse ages has the potential to improve speech perception abilities in the second implanted ear and to provide access to the use of binaural mechanisms such as the head shadow effect. The improvement unfolds over time and continues to grow during the 6 to 12 months after activation of the second implant. Younger children in this study achieved higher open-set speech perception scores in the second ear, but older children still demonstrate bilateral benefit in noise. Determining the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness that results from such potential capabilities in bilaterally implanted children requires additional study with larger groups of subjects and more prolonged monitoring.

Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of "simultaneous" bilateral cochlear implantation (both implants placed during a single surgical procedure) by comparing bilateral and unilateral implant use in a large number of adult subjects tested at multiple sites. DESIGN: Prospective study of 37 adults with postlinguistic onset of bilateral, severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Performance with the bilateral cochlear implants, using the same speech processor type and speech processing strategy, was compared with performance using the left implant alone and the right implant alone. Speech understanding in quiet (CNCs and HINT sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN Test) were evaluated at several postactivation time intervals, with speech presented at 0 degrees azimuth, and noise at either 0 degrees , 90 degrees right, or 90 degrees left in the horizontal plane. APHAB questionnaire data were collected after each subject underwent a 3-wk "bilateral deprivation" period, during which they wore only the speech processor that produced the best score during unilateral testing, and also after a period of listening again with the bilateral implants. RESULTS: By 6-mo postactivation, a significant advantage for speech understanding in quiet was found in the bilateral listening mode compared with either unilateral listening modes. For speech understanding in noise, the largest and most robust bilateral benefit was when the subject was able to take advantage of the head shadow effect; i.e., results were significantly better for bilateral listening compared with the unilateral condition when the ear opposite to the side of the noise was added to create the bilateral condition. This bilateral benefit was seen on at least one of the two unilateral ear comparisons for nearly all (32/34) subjects. Bilateral benefit was also found for a few subjects in spatial configurations that evaluated binaural redundancy and binaural squelch effects. A subgroup of subjects who had asymmetrical unilateral implant performances were, overall, similar in performance to subjects with symmetrical hearing. The questionnaire data indicated that bilateral users perceive their own performance to be better with bilateral cochlear implants than when using a single device. CONCLUSIONS: Findings with a large patient group are in agreement with previous reports on smaller groups, showing that, overall, bilateral implantation offers the majority of patients advantages when listening in simulated adverse conditions.

Bilateral cochlear implants in children: localization acuity measured with minimum audible angle.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sound localization acuity in a group of children who received bilateral (BI) cochlear implants in sequential procedures and to determine the extent to which BI auditory experience affects sound localization acuity. In addition, to investigate the extent to which a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear can also provide benefits on this task. DESIGN: Two groups of children participated, 13 with BI cochlear implants (cochlear implant + cochlear implant), ranging in age from 3 to 16 yrs, and six with a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (cochlear implant + hearing aid), ages 4 to 14 yrs. Testing was conducted in large sound-treated booths with loudspeakers positioned on a horizontal arc with a radius of 1.5 m. Stimuli were spondaic words recorded with a male voice. Stimulus levels typically averaged 60 dB SPL and were randomly roved between 56 and 64 dB SPL (+/-4 dB rove); in a few instances, levels were held fixed (60 dB SPL). Testing was conducted by using a "listening game" platform via computerized interactive software, and the ability of each child to discriminate sounds presented to the right or left was measured for loudspeakers subtending various angular separations. Minimum audible angle thresholds were measured in the BI (cochlear implant + cochlear implant or cochlear implant + hearing aid) listening mode and under monaural conditions. RESULTS: Approximately 70% (9/13) of children in the cochlear implant + cochlear implant group discriminated left/right for source separations of

Bilateral cochlear implants in adults and children.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the benefit (ie, sound localization and speech intelligibility in noise) of bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) in adults and in children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Seventeen adults and 3 children underwent testing 3 months after activation of bilateral hearing. Adults received their devices in a simultaneous procedure and children in sequential procedures (3-8 years apart). Adults underwent testing of sound localization and speech intelligibility, with a single CI and bilaterally. Children underwent testing of sound localization, right/left discrimination, and speech intelligibility, with the first CI alone and bilaterally. We used computer games to attract the children's attention and engage them in the psychophysical tasks for long periods of time. RESULTS: Preliminary findings suggest that, for adults, bilateral hearing leads to better performance on the localization task, and on the speech task when the noise is near the poorer of the 2 ears. In children, localization and discrimination are slightly better under bilateral conditions, but not remarkably so. On the speech tasks, 1 child did not benefit from bilateral hearing. Two children showed consistent improvement with bilateral hearing when the noise was near the side that underwent implantation first. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral CIs may offer advantages to some listeners. The tasks described in this study might offer a powerful tool for measuring such advantages, especially in young children. The extent of the advantage, however, is difficult to ascertain after 3 months of bilateral listening experience, and might require a more prolonged period of adjustment and learning. Future work should be aimed at examining these issues.

Pediatric outcomes with the nucleus 24 contour: North American clinical trial.

The Nucleus 24 Contour is a new cochlear implant that has recently undergone clinical trials in adults and children. The Contour uses the same electronics as the previous-generation Nucleus 24 (CI24M) but incorporates a downsized receiver-stimulator and a perimodiolar electrode array. The indications for use were expanded to include children as young as 12 months of age and children 24 months of age and older with severe to profound hearing loss who had open-set word recognition up to 30%. The Contour was successfully implanted in 256 children. The mean level of postoperative speech perception with the Contour was significantly better than the preoperative baseline with hearing aids on all measures. Children who had open-set speech perception in an audition-only condition before surgery demonstrated higher levels of postoperative performance with the Contour than children with no open-set speech perception before surgery.

Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to document speech perception and localization abilities in patients who use a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear. DESIGN: We surveyed a group of 111 cochlear implant patients and asked them whether they used a hearing aid on their unimplanted ear. The first three patients who were available were tested on word and sentence recognition and localization tasks. Speech stimuli were presented from the front in quiet and in noise. In the latter conditions, noise was either from the front, the right, or the left. Localization was tested with noise bursts presented at 45 degrees from the right or left. In addition we asked the patients about their abilities to integrate the information from both devices. RESULTS: Speech perception tests in quiet showed a binaural advantage for only one of the three patients for words and none for sentences. With speech and noise both in front of the patient, two patients performed better with both devices than with either device alone. With speech in front and noise on the hearing aid side, no binaural advantage was seen, but with noise on the cochlear implant side, one patient showed a binaural advantage. Localization ability improved with both devices for two patients. The third patient had above-chance localization ability with his implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: A cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear can provide binaural advantages. The patient who did not show a clear binaural advantage had the poorest hearing aid alone performance. The absolute and relative levels of performance at each ear are likely to influence the potential for binaural integration.

The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present psychophysical data for 40 Nucleus 24 Contour adult patients with 1 mo of device experience and speech perception results for a group of 56 adult patients with 3 mo experience using the Nucleus 24 Contour cochlear implant system. Postoperative hearing thresholds (i.e., under headphones) in the implanted ear were also assessed in a group of 85 patients who had measurable hearing preoperatively. This was of interest because preservation of residual hearing, postoperatively, is consistent with atraumatic insertion of the electrode array. In addition, data will be presented that reflected feedback from 40 surgeons who participated in the trial. DESIGN: Participants in this study were 18 yr of age or older, with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss with no congenital component. Preoperatively, they scored < or = 50% open-set sentence recognition (HINT sentences) in the ear to be implanted and < or = 60% in the best-aided condition. The investigation was a repeated-measures single-subject experiment and took place at 46 different North American clinical sites. Preoperative performance was compared with postoperative performance 3 mo after device activation. Clinicians were able to program patients' processors with one, two, or all three speech-processing strategies. Testing took place using the participant's preferred speech-processing strategy (SPEAK, CIS, or ACE). Preoperative unaided hearing thresholds were compared with unaided thresholds in the implanted ear measured 1 mo after device activation. Surgeons were canvassed regarding surgical use and design of the device via a questionnaire after having completed at least one Nucleus 24 Contour surgery. RESULTS: Average T- and C-levels for the Nucleus 24 Contour patients were considerably lower than those using the Nucleus 24 (CI24M). A total of 85 patients had measurable hearing preoperatively at two or more audiometric frequencies in the ear implanted. Of these patients 41 (48%) had measurable hearing at one or more frequencies and 32 (38%) had measurable hearing at two or more frequencies postoperatively. In general, surgeons found the Nucleus 24 Contour easy to insert and were pleased with the design features of the device. The downsized receiver/stimulator (of the Nucleus 24 Contour) required less drilling than the Nucleus 24, reducing surgical time, as well as making the Contour better suited for implantation in those with small skull sizes (e.g., small children and infants). After 3 mo of device use, mean open-set speech perception in quiet and in noise was significantly better than preoperative performance on all test measures. Patients using the ACE strategy had significantly better mean scores for all measures than patients using SPEAK. Only two patients preferred to use the CIS coding strategy. CONCLUSIONS The results presented in this article demonstrated that the design objectives of the Nucleus 24 Contour were met. Namely, results from this study, together with insertion studies, were consistent with perimodiolar placement using an implant design that the majority of surgeons found easy to insert with relatively minimal trauma. Reduced T- and C-levels were observed with Contour patients when compared with patients using the Nucleus 24 with the straight array, consistent with perimodiolar placement. A survey of surgeons participating in the clinical trial indicated easier, or equally easy, insertion of the Contour array, compared with previous Nucleus products as well as other manufacturers' devices, without the use of additional insertion tools or array positioners. Postoperatively, 46% of patients with preoperative residual hearing maintained some level of unaided hearing postoperatively, suggesting atraumatic insertion of the Nucleus 24 Contour electrode array. It is worth noting that all 216 patients implanted during this study had full insertions of their Contour electrode arrays. High levels of open-set speech perception in quiet and in noise were achieved and patients using the ACE strategy had significantly better mean scores for all measures than patients using SPEAK. Only two patients preferred to use the CIS coding strategy.

Three-month results with bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate possible binaural listening advantages for speech in quiet, speech in noise, and for localization in a group of postlingually deafened adults with two cochlear implants functioning independently after 3 mo experience. DESIGN: Nine postlingually deafened subjects who had received a Cochlear Corporation CI24M implant in each ear were evaluated on a number of tasks. The subjects all had audiometric or biographical (e.g., duration of deafness) differences between the ears. Word and sentence materials were presented to the subjects in quiet and in noise with the signal always in the front and the noise from the front or either side. Results are reported for each ear and for both ears with the noise on either side. This allowed evaluation of head shadow and squelch effects. Additionally, localization ability was assessed for broadband noise presented either to the right or left of center at 45 degrees azimuth. Localization was assessed for each ear and for both ears. RESULTS: Results of speech testing in quiet showed a significant advantage for the binaural condition over the better ear in four subjects. In noise, with both signal and noise in front of the subject, a significant advantage of two ears over the better ear was found for four subjects. For noise to one side of the head, when the ear opposite the noise source was added to the ear ipsilateral to the noise, a significant advantage was demonstrated for seven of seven tested subjects. When the ear ipsilateral to the noise was added to the ear contralateral to the noise, a significant advantage was shown for only one of seven (noise on right) and three of seven (noise on left) tested subjects. The localization task showed that all seven tested subjects could discriminate 45 degrees left from 45 degrees right above chance with bilateral stimulation. Three subjects could perform the discrimination above chance with only one ear. However, performance with both ears was significantly better than performance with one ear for two of these latter subjects. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that bilateral cochlear implants can provide real advantages, particularly when it is possible to utilize the ear that is away from a noise source, thus taking advantage of the head shadow effect. In addition, localization ability was generally better with two implants than with one.