Asymmetric Hearing Loss in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: Results and Recommendations From a Multisite Prospective Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: A multisite clinical trial was conducted to obtain cochlear implant (CI) efficacy data in adults with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) and establish an evidence-based framework for clinical decision-making regarding CI candidacy, counseling, and assessment tools. Study hypotheses were threefold: (1) 6-month postimplant performance in the poor ear (PE) with a CI will be significantly better than preimplant performance with a hearing aid (HA), (2) 6-month postimplant performance with a CI and HA (bimodal) will be significantly better than preimplant performance with bilateral HAs (Bil HAs), and (3) 6-month postimplant bimodal performance will be significantly better than aided, better ear (BE) performance. DESIGN: Forty adults with AHL from four, metropolitan CI centers participated. Hearing criteria for the ear to be implanted included (1) pure-tone average (PTA, 0.5, 1, 2 kHz) of >70 dB HL, (2) aided, monosyllabic word score of ≤30%, (3) duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss of ≥6 months, and (4) onset of hearing loss ≥6 years of age. Hearing criteria for the BE included (1) PTA (0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz) of 40 to 70 dB HL, (2) currently using a HA, (3) aided, word score of >40%, and (4) stable hearing for the previous 1-year period. Speech perception and localization measures, in quiet and in noise, were administered preimplant and at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months postimplant. Preimplant testing was performed in three listening conditions, PE HA, BE HA, and Bil HAs. Postimplant testing was performed in three conditions, CI, BE HA, and bimodal. Outcome factors included age at implantation and length of deafness (LOD) in the PE. RESULTS: A hierarchical nonlinear analysis predicted significant improvement in the PE by 3 months postimplant versus preimplant for audibility and speech perception with a plateau in performance at approximately 6 months. The model predicted significant improvement in postimplant, bimodal outcomes versus preimplant outcomes (Bil HAs) for all speech perception measures by 3 months. Both age and LOD were predicted to moderate some CI and bimodal outcomes. In contrast with speech perception, localization in quiet and noise was not predicted to improve by 6 months when comparing Bil HAs (preimplant) to bimodal (postimplant) outcomes. However, when participants' preimplant everyday listening condition (BE HA or Bil HAs) was compared with bimodal performance, the model predicted significant improvement by 3 months for localization in quiet and noise. Lastly, BE HA results were stable over time; a generalized linear model analysis revealed bimodal performance was significantly better than performance with a BE HA at all postimplant intervals for most speech perception measures and localization. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed significant CI and bimodal benefit for AHL participants by 3-months postimplant, with a plateau in CI and bimodal performance at approximately 6-months postimplant. Results can be used to inform AHL CI candidates and to monitor postimplant performance. On the basis of this and other AHL research, clinicians should consider a CI for individuals with AHL if the PE has a PTA (0.5, 1, 2 kHz) >70 dB HL and a Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant word score ≤40%. LOD >10 years should not be a contraindication.

Hearing and Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation in Adult Hearing Aid Users 65 Years or Older: A Secondary Analysis of a Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hearing loss, especially moderate to severe forms, has the potential to negatively affect an individual's physical, social, emotional, and cognitive well-being. Moreover, having ineffective binaural hearing increases difficulty understanding speech in noise and leads to a greater degree of social isolation and loneliness and a reduced quality of life (QoL). Objective: To explore the audiometric and holistic effects of cochlear implantation in a group of adults 65 years or older compared with an optimized bilateral hearing aid condition. Design, Setting, and Participants: This ad hoc secondary analysis of a prospective, single-subject, repeated-measures nonrandomized clinical trial included 13 cochlear implantation centers across the United States. Participants 65 years or older with postlingual bilateral moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss with aided Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores in quiet of 40% or less in the ear to undergo implantation and 50% or less in the contralateral ear were included in the analysis. Baseline QoL testing was performed after 1 month of optimized bilateral hearing aid use. Participants were enrolled from February 20, 2017, to May 3, 2018, and follow-up was completed December 21, 2018. Data were analyzed from March 25, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Interventions: Unilateral implantation with a slim, modiolar cochlear implant device. Hearing aid use in the contralateral ear was required through the 6-month primary end-point interval. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to evaluate speech perception before and 6 months after activation of a new cochlear implant. Secondary objectives were QoL metrics in the everyday listening condition before and 6 months after implantation. Results: Seventy participants (51 men [73%]) with a median age of 74 (range, 65-91) years were included in the analysis. No major adverse events occurred. Mixed-model analysis with estimated marginal means and 95% CIs compared preimplantation baseline performance with 6-month postimplantation performance. A clinically important improvement in CNC words was shown in the bimodal condition, with a mean difference of 37.2% (95% CI, 32.0%-42.4%), and in the unilateral (cochlear implant only) condition, with a mean difference of 44.1% (95% CI, 39.0%-49.2%). A clinically important improvement in noise (AzBio sentences signal-to-noise ratio of +10 dB) was also shown, with a mean difference of 21.6% (95% CI, 15.7%-27.5%) in the bimodal condition and 24.5% (95% CI, 18.3%-30.7%) in the unilateral condition. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 multiple-attribute score improved by 0.186 (95% CI, 0.136-0.234); the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale total score improved by 2.58 (95% CI, 2.18-2.99); and a novel Device Use Questionnaire reported 94% of participants were satisfied with overall hearing in the everyday listening condition. Conclusions and Relevance: This subgroup analysis of patients 65 years or older enrolled in a within-subject clinical trial of cochlear implantation demonstrated clinically meaningful audiometric and QoL benefit with an acceptable risk profile. These findings suggest that cochlear implantation in older adults may facilitate the concept of healthy aging. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03007472.

Front- and rear-facing horizontal sound localization results in adults with unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing.

Binaural hearing allows listeners to take advantage of auditory cues that are necessary for sound localization. Patients with asymmetric or unilateral hearing loss receive degraded or absent binaural cues and often demonstrate decreased sound localization in the horizontal plane. Given the importance of sound localization for everyday function, there is a need for clinically feasible methods to evaluate localization, particularly as validation of intervention for patients with unilateral hearing loss. The present study compared sound localization results obtained for front-facing and rear-facing soundfield systems and for a rear-facing head related transfer function (HRTF) system in two hearing groups, listeners with normal hearing and those with unilateral hearing loss. Results between the three systems were highly correlated and repeatable. Neither age nor a pure-tone average of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz correlated with localization performance among normal hearing participants. Among the UHL group, age and onset of severe to profound hearing loss were positively correlated with localization results; length of deafness was negatively correlated. Behavioral chance performance was established for localization with rear-facing HRTF and rear-facing soundfield test systems; group mean results for unilateral hearing loss participants were significantly better than chance. Continued work is needed in developing clinically feasible evaluation methods for patients with asymmetric or unilateral hearing loss, particularly as the effects of treatment options are assessed.

Evaluation of a New Algorithm to Optimize Audibility in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: A positive relation between audibility and speech understanding has been established for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Sound field thresholds of 20 dB HL across the frequency range provide CI users the opportunity to understand soft and very soft speech. However, programming the sound processor to attain good audibility can be time-consuming and difficult for some patients. To address these issues, Advanced Bionics (AB) developed the SoftVoice algorithm designed to remove system noise and thereby improve audibility of soft speech. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SoftVoice in optimizing AB CI recipients' soft-speech perception. DESIGN: Two studies were conducted. Study 1 had two phases, 1A and 1B. Sixteen adult, AB CI recipients participated in Study 1A. Acute testing was performed in the unilateral CI condition using a Harmony processor programmed with participants' everyday-use program (Everyday) and that same program but with SoftVoice implemented. Speech recognition measures were administered at several presentation levels in quiet (35 to 60 dB SPL) and in noise (60 dB SPL). In Study 1B, 10 of the participants compared Everyday and SoftVoice at home to obtain feedback regarding the use of SoftVoice in various environments. During Study 2, soft-speech perception was acutely measured with Everyday and SoftVoice for 10 participants using the Naida CI Q70 processor. Results with the Harmony (Study 1A) and Naida processors were compared. Additionally, Study 2 evaluated programming options for setting electrode threshold levels (T-levels or Ts) to improve the usability of SoftVoice in daily life. RESULTS: Study 1A showed significantly higher scores with SoftVoice than Everyday at soft presentation levels (35, 40, 45, and 50 dB SPL) and no significant differences between programs at a conversational level (60 dB SPL) in quiet or in noise. After take-home experience with SoftVoice and Everyday (Study 1B), 5 of 10 participants reported preferring SoftVoice over Everyday; however, 6 reported bothersome environmental sound when listening with SoftVoice at home. Results of Study 2 indicated similar soft-speech perception between Harmony and Naida processors. Additionally, implementing SoftVoice with Ts at the manufacturer's default setting of 10% of Ms reduced reports of bothersome environmental sound during take-home experience; however, soft-speech perception was best with SoftVoice when Ts were behaviorally set above 10% of Ms. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that SoftVoice may be a potential tool for optimizing AB users' audibility and, in turn, soft-speech perception. To achieve optimal performance at soft levels and comfortable use in daily environments, setting Ts must be considered with SoftVoice. Future research should examine program parameters that may benefit soft-speech perception when used in combination with SoftVoice (e.g., increased input dynamic range).

Results in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients With Varied Asymmetric Hearing: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Speech Recognition, Localization, and Participant Report.

OBJECTIVES: Asymmetric hearing with severe to profound hearing loss (SPHL) in one ear and better hearing in the other requires increased listening effort and is detrimental for understanding speech in noise and sound localization. Although a cochlear implant (CI) is the only treatment that can restore hearing to an ear with SPHL, current candidacy criteria often disallows this option for patients with asymmetric hearing. The present study aimed to evaluate longitudinal performance outcomes in a relatively large group of adults with asymmetric hearing who received a CI in the poor ear. DESIGN: Forty-seven adults with postlingual hearing loss participated. Test materials included objective and subjective measures meant to elucidate communication challenges encountered by those with asymmetric hearing. Test intervals included preimplant and 6 and 12 months postimplant. Preimplant testing was completed in participants' everyday listening condition: bilateral hearing aids (HAs) n = 9, better ear HA n = 29, and no HA n = 9; postimplant, each ear was tested separately and in the bimodal condition. RESULTS: Group mean longitudinal results in the bimodal condition postimplant compared with the preimplant everyday listening condition indicated significantly improved sentence scores at soft levels and in noise, improved localization, and higher ratings of communication function by 6 months postimplant. Group mean, 6-month postimplant results were significantly better in the bimodal condition compared with either ear alone. Audibility and speech recognition for the poor ear alone improved significantly with a CI compared with preimplant. Most participants had clinically meaningful benefit on most measures. Contributory factors reported for traditional CI candidates also impacted results for this population. In general, older participants had poorer bimodal speech recognition in noise and localization abilities than younger participants. Participants with early SPHL onset had better bimodal localization than those with later SPHL onset, and participants with longer SPHL duration had poorer CI alone speech understanding in noise but not in quiet. Better ear pure-tone average (PTA) correlated with all speech recognition measures in the bimodal condition. To understand the impact of better ear hearing on bimodal performance, participants were grouped by better ear PTA: group 1 PTA ≤40 dB HL (n = 19), group 2 PTA = 41 to 55 dB HL (n = 14), and group 3 PTA = 56 to 70 dB HL (n = 14). All groups showed bimodal benefit on speech recognition measures in quiet and in noise; however, only group 3 obtained benefit when noise was toward the CI ear. All groups showed improved localization and ratings of perceived communication. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a CI for the poor ear was an effective treatment for this population. Improved audibility and speech recognition were evident by 6 months postimplant. Improvements in sound localization and self-reports of communication benefit were significant and not related to better ear hearing. Participants with more hearing in the better ear (group 1) showed less bimodal benefit but greater bimodal performance for speech recognition than groups 2 and 3. Test batteries for this population should include quality of life measures, sound localization, and adaptive speech recognition measures with spatially separated noise to capture the hearing loss deficits and treatment benefits reported by this patient population.

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.

Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

OBJECTIVE: To identify primary biographic and audiologic factors contributing to cochlear implant (CI) performance variability in quiet and noise by controlling electrode array type and electrode position within the cochlea. BACKGROUND: Although CI outcomes have improved over time, considerable outcome variability still exists. Biographic, audiologic, and device-related factors have been shown to influence performance. Examining CI recipients with consistent array type and electrode position may allow focused investigation into outcome variability resulting from biographic and audiologic factors. METHODS: Thirty-nine adults (40 ears) implanted for at least 6 months with a perimodiolar electrode array known (via computed tomography [CT] imaging) to be in scala tympani participated. Test materials, administered CI only, included monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet and noise, and spectral ripple discrimination. RESULTS: In quiet, scores were high with mean word and sentence scores of 76 and 87%, respectively; however, sentence scores decreased by an average of 35 percentage points when noise was added. A principal components (PC) analysis of biographic and audiologic factors found three distinct factors, PC1 Age, PC2 Duration, and PC3 Pre-op Hearing. PC1 Age was the only factor that correlated, albeit modestly, with speech recognition in quiet and noise. Spectral ripple discrimination strongly correlated with speech measures. CONCLUSION: For these recipients with consistent electrode position, PC1 Age was related to speech recognition performance. Consistent electrode position may have contributed to high speech understanding in quiet. Inter-subject variability in noise may have been influenced by auditory/cognitive processing, known to decline with age, and mechanisms that underlie spectral resolution ability.

Localization training results in individuals with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss.

Adults with unilateral hearing loss often demonstrate decreased sound localization ability and report that situations requiring spatial hearing are especially challenging. Few studies have evaluated localization abilities combined with training in this population. The present pilot study examined whether localization of two sound types would improve after training, and explored the relation between localization ability or training benefit and demographic factors. Eleven participants with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss attended five training sessions; localization cues gradually decreased across sessions. Localization ability was assessed pre- and post-training. Assessment stimuli were monosyllabic words and spectral and temporal random spectrogram sounds. Root mean square errors for each participant and stimulus type were used in group and correlation analyses; individual data were examined with ordinary least squares regression. Mean pre-to post-training test results were significantly different for all stimulus types. Among the participants, eight significantly improved following training on at least one localization measure, whereas three did not. Participants with the poorest localization ability improved the most and likewise, those with the best pre-training ability showed the least training benefit. Correlation results suggested that test age, age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss and better ear high frequency audibility may contribute to localization ability. Results support the need for continued investigation of localization training efficacy and consideration of localization training within rehabilitation protocols for individuals with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss.

A longitudinal study in adults with sequential bilateral cochlear implants: time course for individual ear and bilateral performance.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of progress in the 2nd implanted ear as it relates to the 1st implanted ear and to bilateral performance in adult sequential cochlear implant recipients. In addition, this study aimed to identify factors that contribute to patient outcomes. METHOD: The authors performed a prospective longitudinal study in 21 adults who received bilateral sequential cochlear implants. Testing occurred at 6 intervals: prebilateral through 12 months postbilateral implantation. Measures evaluated speech recognition in quiet and noise, localization, and perceived benefit. RESULTS: Second ear performance was similar to 1st ear performance by 6 months postbilateral implantation. Bilateral performance was generally superior to either ear alone; however, participants with shorter 2nd ear length of deafness (<20 years) had more rapid early improvement and better overall outcomes than those with longer 2nd ear length of deafness (>30 years). All participants reported bilateral benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Adult cochlear implant recipients demonstrated benefit from 2nd ear implantation for speech recognition, localization, and perceived communication function. Because performance outcomes were related to length of deafness, shorter time between surgeries may be warranted to reduce negative length-of-deafness effects. Future study may clarify the impact of other variables, such as preimplant hearing aid use, particularly for individuals with longer periods of deafness.

Postlingual adult performance in noise with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice Low, Medium, and High.

OBJECTIVES: The study's objectives were to evaluate speech recognition in multiple listening conditions using several noise types with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice (Low, Medium, High) and to determine which ClearVoice program was most beneficial for everyday use. METHODS: Fifteen postlingual adults attended four sessions; speech recognition was assessed at sessions 1 and 3 with HiRes 120 and at sessions 2 and 4 with all ClearVoice programs. Test measures included sentences presented in restaurant noise (R-SPACE), in speech-spectrum noise, in four- and eight-talker babble, and connected discourse presented in 12-talker babble. Participants completed a questionnaire comparing ClearVoice programs. RESULTS: Significant group differences in performance between HiRes 120 and ClearVoice were present only in the R-SPACE; performance was better with ClearVoice High than HiRes 120. Among ClearVoice programs, no significant group differences were present for any measure. Individual results revealed most participants performed better in the R-SPACE with ClearVoice than HiRes 120. For other measures, significant individual differences between HiRes 120 and ClearVoice were not prevalent. Individual results among ClearVoice programs differed and overall preferences varied. Questionnaire data indicated increased understanding with High and Medium in certain environments. DISCUSSION: R-SPACE and questionnaire results indicated an advantage for ClearVoice High and Medium. Individual test and preference data showed mixed results between ClearVoice programs making global recommendations difficult; however, results suggest providing ClearVoice High and Medium and HiRes 120 as processor options for adults willing to change settings. For adults unwilling or unable to change settings, ClearVoice Medium is a practical choice for daily listening.

Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVE: A great deal of variability exists in the speech-recognition abilities of postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. A number of previous studies have shown that duration of deafness is a primary factor affecting CI outcomes; however, there is little agreement regarding other factors that may affect performance. The objective of the present study was to determine the source of variability in CI outcomes by examining three main factors, biographic/audiologic information, electrode position within the cochlea, and cognitive abilities in a group of newly implanted CI recipients. DESIGN: Participants were 114 postlingually deaf adults with either the Cochlear or Advanced Bionics CI systems. Biographic/audiologic information, aided sentence-recognition scores, a high resolution temporal bone CT scan and cognitive measures were obtained before implantation. Monosyllabic word recognition scores were obtained during numerous test intervals from 2 weeks to 2 years after initial activation of the CI. Electrode position within the cochlea was determined by three-dimensional reconstruction of pre- and postimplant CT scans. Participants' word scores over 2 years were fit with a logistic curve to predict word score as a function of time and to highlight 4-word recognition metrics (CNC initial score, CNC final score, rise time to 90% of CNC final score, and CNC difference score). RESULTS: Participants were divided into six outcome groups based on the percentile ranking of their CNC final score, that is, participants in the bottom 10% were in group 1; those in the top 10% were in group 6. Across outcome groups, significant relationships from low to high performance were identified. Biographic/audiologic factors of age at implantation, duration of hearing loss, duration of hearing aid use, and duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss were significantly and inversely related to performance as were frequency modulated tone, sound-field threshold levels obtained with the CI. That is, the higher-performing outcome groups were younger in age at the time of implantation, had shorter duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss, and had lower CI sound-field threshold levels. Significant inverse relationships across outcome groups were also observed for electrode position, specifically the percentage of electrodes in scala vestibuli as opposed to scala tympani and depth of insertion of the electrode array. In addition, positioning of electrode arrays closer to the modiolar wall was positively correlated with outcome. Cognitive ability was significantly and positively related to outcome; however, age at implantation and cognition were highly correlated. After controlling for age, cognition was no longer a factor affecting outcomes. CONCLUSION: There are a number of factors that limit CI outcomes. They can act singularly or collectively to restrict an individual's performance and to varying degrees. The highest performing CI recipients are those with the least number of limiting factors. Knowledge of when and how these factors affect performance can favorably influence counseling, device fitting, and rehabilitation for individual patients and can contribute to improved device design and application.

Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examined speech recognition, localization, temporal and spectral discrimination, and subjective reports of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with unilateral deafness. STUDY DESIGN: Three adult male participants with short-term unilateral deafness (<5 yr) participated. All had sudden onset of severe-to-profound hearing loss in 1 ear, which then received a CI, and normal or near normal hearing in the other ear. Speech recognition in quiet and noise, localization, discrimination of temporal and spectral cues, and a subjective questionnaire were obtained over several days. Listening conditions were CI, normal hearing (NH) ear, and bilaterally (CI and NH). RESULTS: All participants had open-set speech recognition and excellent audibility (250-6,000 Hz) with the CI. Localization improved bilaterally compared with the NH ear alone. Word recognition in noise was significantly better bilaterally than with the NH ear for 2 participants. Sentence recognition in various noise conditions did not show significant bilateral improvement; however, the CI did not hinder performance in noise even when noise was toward the CI side. The addition of the CI improved temporal difference discrimination for 2 participants and spectral difference discrimination for all participants. Participants wore the CI full time, and subjective reports were positive. CONCLUSION: Overall, the CI recipients with unilateral deafness obtained open-set speech recognition, improved localization, improved word recognition in noise, and improved perception of their ability to hear in everyday life. A larger study is warranted to further quantify the benefits and limitations of cochlear implantation in individuals with unilateral deafness.

Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Current measures used to determine sentence recognition abilities in cochlear implant recipients often include tests with one talker and one rate of speech. Performance with these measures may not accurately represent the speech recognition abilities of the listeners. Evaluation of cochlear implant performance should include measures that reflect realistic listening conditions. For example, the use of multiple talkers who vary in gender, rate of speech, and regional dialects represent varied communication interactions that people encounter daily. The TIMIT sentences, which use multiple talkers and incorporate these variations, provide additional test material for evaluating speech recognition. Dorman and colleagues created 34 lists of TIMIT sentences that were normalized for equal intelligibility using simulations of cochlear implant processing with normal-hearing listeners. Adults with sensorineural hearing loss who listen with cochlear implants represent a different population. Further study is needed to determine if these lists are equivalent for adult cochlear implant recipients and, if not, to identify a subset of lists that may be used with this population. PURPOSE: To evaluate the speech recognition equivalence of 34 TIMIT sentence lists with adult cochlear implant recipients. RESEARCH DESIGN: A prospective study comparing test-retest results within the same group of listeners. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-two adult cochlear implant recipients who met the inclusion criteria of at least 3 mo device use and a monosyllabic word score of 30% or greater participated in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants were administered 34 TIMIT sentence lists (20 sentences per list) at each of two test sessions several months apart. List order was randomized and results scored as percent of words correct. Test-retest correlations and 95% confidence intervals for the means were used to identify equivalent lists with high test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Mean list scores across participants ranged from 66 to 81% with an overall mean of 73%. Twenty-nine lists had high test-retest reliability. Using the overall mean as a benchmark, the 95% confidence intervals indicated that 25 of the remaining 29 lists were equivalent (e.g., the benchmark of 73% fell within the 95% confidence interval for both test and retest). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-five of the TIMIT lists evaluated are equivalent when used with adult cochlear implant recipients who have open-set word recognition abilities. These lists may prove valuable for monitoring progress, comparing listening conditions or treatments, and developing aural rehabilitation plans for cochlear implant recipients.

Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in a patient with bilateral Ménière's disease.

This case study describes a 45-yr-old female with bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss due to Ménière's disease. She received her first cochlear implant in the right ear in 2008 and the second cochlear implant in the left ear in 2010. The case study examines the enhancement to speech recognition, particularly in noise, provided by bilateral cochlear implants. Speech recognition tests were administered prior to obtaining the second implant and at a number of test intervals following activation of the second device. Speech recognition in quiet and noise as well as localization abilities were assessed in several conditions to determine bilateral benefit and performance differences between ears. The results of the speech recognition testing indicated a substantial improvement in the patient's ability to understand speech in noise and her ability to localize sound when using bilateral cochlear implants compared to using a unilateral implant or an implant and a hearing aid. In addition, the patient reported considerable improvement in her ability to communicate in daily life when using bilateral implants versus a unilateral implant. This case suggests that cochlear implantation is a viable option for patients who have lost their hearing to Ménière's disease even when a number of medical treatments and surgical interventions have been performed to control vertigo. In the case presented, bilateral cochlear implantation was necessary for this patient to communicate successfully at home and at work.

Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: Bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss is a standard criterion for cochlear implantation. Increasingly, patients are implanted in one ear and continue to use a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear to improve abilities such as sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Patients with severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and a more moderate hearing loss in the other ear (i.e., asymmetric hearing) are not typically considered candidates for cochlear implantation. Amplification in the poorer ear is often unsuccessful because of limited benefit, restricting the patient to unilateral listening from the better ear alone. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with asymmetric hearing loss could benefit from cochlear implantation in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. DESIGN: Ten adults with asymmetric hearing between ears participated. In the poorer ear, all participants met cochlear implant candidacy guidelines; seven had postlingual onset, and three had pre/perilingual onset of severe to profound hearing loss. All had open-set speech recognition in the better-hearing ear. Assessment measures included word and sentence recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in fixed noise (four-talker babble) and in diffuse restaurant noise using an adaptive procedure, localization of word stimuli, and a hearing handicap scale. Participants were evaluated preimplant with hearing aids and postimplant with the implant alone, the hearing aid alone in the better ear, and bimodally (the implant and hearing aid in combination). Postlingual participants were evaluated at 6 mo postimplant, and pre/perilingual participants were evaluated at 6 and 12 mo postimplant. Data analysis compared the following results: (1) the poorer-hearing ear preimplant (with hearing aid) and postimplant (with cochlear implant); (2) the device(s) used for everyday listening pre- and postimplant; and (3) the hearing aid-alone and bimodal listening conditions postimplant. RESULTS: The postlingual participants showed significant improvements in speech recognition after 6 mo cochlear implant use in the poorer ear. Five postlingual participants had a bimodal advantage over the hearing aid-alone condition on at least one test measure. On average, the postlingual participants had significantly improved localization with bimodal input compared with the hearing aid-alone. Only one pre/perilingual participant had open-set speech recognition with the cochlear implant. This participant had better hearing than the other two pre/perilingual participants in both the poorer and better ear. Localization abilities were not significantly different between the bimodal and hearing aid-alone conditions for the pre/perilingual participants. Mean hearing handicap ratings improved postimplant for all participants indicating perceived benefit in everyday life with the addition of the cochlear implant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical cochlear implant candidates can benefit from using a cochlear implant in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. For this group of 10, the 7 postlingually deafened participants showed greater benefits with the cochlear implant than the pre/perilingual participants; however, further study is needed to determine maximum benefit for those with early onset of hearing loss.

Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide guidelines to optimize perception of soft speech and speech in noise for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant (CI) users. DESIGN: Three programs differing in T-levels were created for ten subjects. Using the T-level setting that provided the lowest FM-tone, sound-field threshold levels for each subject, three additional programs were created with input dynamic range (IDR) settings of 50, 65 and 80 dB. STUDY SAMPLE: Subjects were postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with either the Clarion CII or 90K CI devices. RESULTS: Sound-field threshold levels were lowest with T-levels set higher than 10% of M-levels and with the two widest IDRs. Group data revealed significantly higher scores for CNC words presented at a soft level with an IDR of 80 dB and 65 dB compared to 50 dB. Although no significant group differences were seen between the three IDRs for sentences in noise, significant individual differences were present. CONCLUSIONS: Setting Ts higher than the manufacturer's recommendation of 10% of M-levels and providing IDR options can improve overall speech perception; however, for some users, higher Ts and wider IDRs may not be appropriate. Based on the results of the study, clinical programming recommendations are provided.

Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.

OBJECTIVE: HiRes (HR) 120 is a sound-processing strategy purported to offer an increase in the precision of frequency-to-place mapping through the use of current steering. This within-subject study was designed to compare speech recognition as well as music and sound quality ratings for HR and HR 120 processing. SETTING: Cochlear implant/tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS: Eight postlinguistically deafened adults implanted with an Advanced Bionics CII or HR 90K cochlear implant. STUDY DESIGN/MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance with HR and HR 120 was assessed during 4 test sessions with a battery of measures including monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet and in noise, and ratings of sound quality and musical passages. RESULTS: Compared with HR, speech recognition results in adult cochlear implant recipients revealed small but significant improvements with HR 120 for single syllable words and for 2 of 3 sentence recognition measures in noise. Both easy and more difficult sentence material presented in quiet were not significantly different between strategies. Additionally, music quality ratings were significantly better for HR 120 than for HR, and 7 of 8 subjects preferred HR 120 over HR for listening in everyday life. CONCLUSION: HR 120 may offer equivalent or improved benefit to patients compared with HR. Differences in performance on test measures between strategies are dependent on speech recognition materials and listening conditions.

Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS: Suboptimal cochlear implant (CI) electrode array placement may reduce presentation of coded information to the central nervous system and, consequently, limit speech recognition. BACKGROUND: Generally, mean speech reception scores for CI recipients are similar across different CI systems, yet large outcome variation is observed among recipients implanted with the same device. These observations suggest significant recipient-dependent factors influence speech reception performance. This study examines electrode array insertion depth and scalar placement as recipient-dependent factors affecting outcome. METHODS: Scalar location and depth of insertion of intracochlear electrodes were measured in 14 patients implanted with Advanced Bionics electrode arrays and whose word recognition scores varied broadly. Electrode position was measured using computed tomographic images of the cochlea and correlated with stable monosyllabic word recognition scores. RESULTS: Electrode placement, primarily in terms of depth of insertion and scala tympani versus scala vestibuli location, varies widely across subjects. Lower outcome scores are associated with greater insertion depth and greater number of contacts being located in scala vestibuli. Three patterns of scalar placement are observed suggesting variability in insertion dynamics arising from surgical technique. CONCLUSION: A significant portion of variability in word recognition scores across a broad range of performance levels of CI subjects is explained by variability in scalar location and insertion depth of the electrode array. We suggest that this variability in electrode placement can be reduced and average speech reception improved by better selection of cochleostomy sites, revised insertion approaches, and control of insertion depth during surgical placement of the array.

Effect of increased IIDR in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the increased instantaneous input dynamic range (IIDR) in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (CI) system on recipients' ability to perceive soft speech and speech in noise. Ten adult Freedom CI recipients participated. Two maps differing in IIDR were placed on each subject's processor at initial activation. The IIDR was set to 30 dB for one map and 40 dB for the other. Subjects used both maps for at least one month prior to speech perception testing. Results revealed significantly higher scores for words (50 dB SPL), for sentences in background babble (65 dB SPL), and significantly lower sound field threshold levels with the 40 compared to the 30 dB IIDR map. Ceiling effects may have contributed to non-significant findings for sentences in quiet (50 dB SPL). The Freedom's increased IIDR allows better perception of soft speech and speech in noise.

Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.

The choice of frequency boundaries for the analysis channels of cochlear implants has been shown to impact the speech perception performance of adult recipients (Skinner et al, 1995; Fourakis et al, 2004). While technological limitations heretofore have limited the clinical feasibility of investigating novel frequency assignments, the SPEAR3 research processor affords the opportunity to investigate an unlimited number of possibilities. Here, four different assignments are evaluated using a variety of speech stimuli. All participants accommodated to assignment changes, and no one assignment was significantly preferred. The results suggest that better performance can be achieved using a strategy whereby (1) there are at least 7-8 electrodes allocated below 1000 Hz, (2) the majority of remaining electrodes are allocated between 1100-3000 Hz, and (3) the region above 3 kHz is represented by relatively few electrodes (i.e., 1-3). The results suggest that such frequency assignment flexibility should be made clinically available.