Effect of reducing electrical stimulation rate on hearing performance of Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a 500 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch) rate would provide non-inferior hearing performance compared to the 900 pps/ch rate in the Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE™) sound coding strategy. DESIGN: A repeated measures single-subject design was employed, wherein each subject served as their own control. All except one subject used 900 pps/ch at enrolment. After three weeks of using the alternative rate program, both programs were loaded into the sound processor for two more weeks of take-home use. Subjective performance, preference, words in quiet, sentences in babble, music quality, and fundamental frequency (F0) discrimination were assessed using a balanced design. STUDY SAMPLE: Data from 18 subjects were analysed, with complete datasets available for 17 subjects. RESULTS: Non-inferior performance on all clinical measures was shown for the lower rate program. Subjects' preference ratings were comparable for the programs, with 53% reporting no difference overall. When a preference was expressed, the 900 pps/ch condition was preferred more often. CONCLUSION: Reducing the stimulation rate from 900 pps/ch to 500 pps/ch did not compromise the hearing outcomes evaluated in this study. A lower pulse rate in future cochlear implants could reduce power consumption, allowing for smaller batteries and processors.

Predictive models for cochlear implant outcomes: Performance, generalizability, and the impact of cohort size.

While cochlear implants have helped hundreds of thousands of individuals, it remains difficult to predict the extent to which an individual's hearing will benefit from implantation. Several publications indicate that machine learning may improve predictive accuracy of cochlear implant outcomes compared to classical statistical methods. However, existing studies are limited in terms of model validation and evaluating factors like sample size on predictive performance. We conduct a thorough examination of machine learning approaches to predict word recognition scores (WRS) measured approximately 12 months after implantation in adults with post-lingual hearing loss. This is the largest retrospective study of cochlear implant outcomes to date, evaluating 2,489 cochlear implant recipients from three clinics. We demonstrate that while machine learning models significantly outperform linear models in prediction of WRS, their overall accuracy remains limited (mean absolute error: 17.9-21.8). The models are robust across clinical cohorts, with predictive error increasing by at most 16% when evaluated on a clinic excluded from the training set. We show that predictive improvement is unlikely to be improved by increasing sample size alone, with doubling of sample size estimated to only increasing performance by 3% on the combined dataset. Finally, we demonstrate how the current models could support clinical decision making, highlighting that subsets of individuals can be identified that have a 94% chance of improving WRS by at least 10% points after implantation, which is likely to be clinically meaningful. We discuss several implications of this analysis, focusing on the need to improve and standardize data collection.

A MultiCenter Analysis of Factors Associated with Hearing Outcome for 2,735 Adults with Cochlear Implants.

While the majority of cochlear implant recipients benefit from the device, it remains difficult to estimate the degree of benefit for a specific patient prior to implantation. Using data from 2,735 cochlear-implant recipients from across three clinics, the largest retrospective study of cochlear-implant outcomes to date, we investigate the association between 21 preoperative factors and speech recognition approximately one year after implantation and explore the consistency of their effects across the three constituent datasets. We provide evidence of 17 statistically significant associations, in either univariate or multivariate analysis, including confirmation of associations for several predictive factors, which have only been examined in prior smaller studies. Despite the large sample size, a multivariate analysis shows that the variance explained by our models remains modest across the datasets (R2=0.12-0.21). Finally, we report a novel statistical interaction indicating that the duration of deafness in the implanted ear has a stronger impact on hearing outcome when considered relative to a candidate's age. Our multicenter study highlights several real-world complexities that impact the clinical translation of predictive factors for cochlear implantation outcome. We suggest several directions to overcome these challenges and further improve our ability to model patient outcomes with increased accuracy.

Comparison of electrode impedance measures between a dexamethasone-eluting and standard Cochlear™ Contour Advance® electrode in adult cochlear implant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference in electrode impedance across discrete time points to 24 months post-activation for two groups of adult cochlear implant recipients, one using an investigational perimodiolar (Contour Advance®) array augmented with 40% concentration weight per weight (w/w) dexamethasone (the Drug Eluting Electrode, 'DEE' Group), and the other the commercially available Contour Advance ('Control' Group). DESIGN: Ten adult subjects were implanted with the DEE and fourteen with the Control. Electrode impedances were measured intra-operatively, one-week post-surgery, at initial activation (approximately two-weeks post-surgery), and at approximately one, three, six, 12 and 24 months post-activation. Two different impedance measurements were obtained: 1) in MP1+2 mode using Custom Sound programming software; and 2) 4-point impedance measures utilising BP+2 stimulation mode with recording on non-stimulating electrodes. Data were analysed with respect to both impedance averaged across all electrodes, and impedance for electrodes grouped into basal, middle and apical sections. RESULTS: Group mean MP1+2 impedance for the DEE was significantly lower than for the Control at all post-operative time points examined, and for each of the basal, middle and apical cochlear regions. Group mean 4-point impedance was significantly lower for the DEE than the Control in the basal region at six, 12 and 24 months post-activation and in the middle region at 12- and 24-months post-activation. The pattern of change in MP1+2 impedance differed significantly in the early post-operative period prior to device activation. A significant 4.8 kOhm reduction in impedance between surgery and one-week was observed for the DEE group but not for the Control. A 2.0 kOhm increase between the one and two week post-operative time points was observed for the Control but not for the DEE group. CONCLUSION: While rates of adoption of different surgical approaches differed between the groups and this may have had a confounding effect, the results suggest that passive elution of dexamethasone from the investigational device was associated with a change in the intracochlear environment following surgical implantation of the electrode array, as evidenced by the lower electrode impedance measures.

Influence of contralateral acoustic hearing on adult bimodal outcomes after cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine post-implantation benefit and time taken to acclimate to the cochlear implant for adult candidates with more hearing in the contralateral non-implanted ear than has been previously considered within local candidacy guidelines. DESIGN: Prospective, within-subject experimental design. STUDY SAMPLE: Forty postlingual hearing-impaired adult subjects with a contralateral ear word score in quiet ranging from 27% to 100% (median 67%). RESULTS: Post-implantation improvement of 2.4 dB and 4.0 dB was observed on a sentence in coincident babble test at presentation levels of 65 and 55 dB SPL respectively, and a 2.1 dB benefit in spatial release from masking (SRM) advantage observed when the noise location favoured the implanted side. Significant post-operative group mean change of between 2.1 and 3.0 was observed on the sub-scales of the speech, spatial, and qualities (SSQ) questionnaire. Degree of post-implantation speech reception threshold (SRT) benefit on the coincident babble test and on perception of soft speech and sounds in the environment was greater for subjects with less contralateral hearing. The degree of contralateral acoustic hearing did not affect time taken to acclimate to the device. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study support cochlear implantation for candidates with substantial acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear, and provide guidance regarding post-implantation expectations.

Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to quantify the benefit provided by having access to amplified acoustic hearing in the implanted ear for use in combination with contralateral acoustic hearing and the electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant. DESIGN: Measures of spatial and non-spatial hearing abilities were obtained to compare performance obtained with different configurations of acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation. In the combined listening condition participants had access to bilateral acoustic hearing whereas the bimodal condition used acoustic hearing contralateral to the implanted ear only. Experience was provided with each of the listening conditions using a repeated-measures A-B-B-A experimental design. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen post-linguistically hearing-impaired adults participated in the study. RESULTS: Group mean benefit was obtained with use of the combined mode on measures of speech recognition in coincident speech in noise, localization ability, subjective ratings of real-world benefit, and musical sound quality ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Access to bilateral acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation provides significant benefit on a range of functional measures.

Fitting recommendations and clinical benefit associated with use of the NAL-NL2 hearing-aid prescription in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: For a group of cochlear implant recipients, who use hearing aids in the contralateral ear, the benefit of NAL-NL2 relative to a recipients' own prescription was assessed. Whether there was a preferred frequency response and/or gain deviation from NAL-NL2 was then investigated. DESIGN: Speech recognition and self-reported ratings of benefit were examined for the recipients' own prescription compared to the NAL-NL2 prescription, in the bimodal and hearing-aid alone conditions. Paired-comparison of hearing-aid frequency response was conducted with default NAL-NL2 and two variants, a low frequency boost or cut. Using a loudness balancing procedure, the hearing-aid gain required to achieve equal loudness between the devices was measured. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen adults with post-lingual hearing loss. RESULTS: A 22% increase in group median word score in quiet with use of NAL-NL2 in the hearing-aid alone condition. In the bimodal condition there was no improvement with NAL-NL2. Default NAL-NL2 frequency response was preferred by 67% of participants. For 56% of participants, the preferred gain to achieve loudness balance across bimodal devices was within 5-dB of prescribed values. CONCLUSIONS: The NAL-NL2 prescription provides a high level of clinical performance, and an acceptable frequency response and gain for most participants.

Factors Predicting Postoperative Unilateral and Bilateral Speech Recognition in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients with Acoustic Hearing.

OBJECTIVES: The first objective was to examine factors that could be predictive of postoperative unilateral (cochlear implant alone) speech recognition ability in a group of subjects with greater degrees of preoperative acoustic hearing than has been previously examined. Second, the study aimed to identify factors predictive of speech recognition in the best-aided, bilateral listening condition. DESIGN: Participants were 65 postlinguistically hearing-impaired adults with preoperative phoneme in quiet scores of greater than or equal to 46% in one or both ears. Preoperative demographic and audiometric factors were assessed as predictors of 12-month postoperative unilateral and bilateral monosyllabic word scores in quiet and of bilateral speech reception threshold (SRT) in babble. RESULTS: The predictive regression model accounted for 34.1% of the variance in unilateral word recognition scores in quiet. Factors that predicted better scores included: a shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss in the implanted ear; and poorer pure-tone-averaged thresholds in the contralateral ear. Predictive regression models of postimplantation bilateral function accounted for 36.0% of the variance for word scores in quiet, and 30.9% of the variance for SRT in noise. A shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss in the implanted ear, a lower age at the time of implantation, and better contralateral hearing thresholds were associated with higher bilateral word recognition in quiet and SRT in noise. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of cochlear implant recipients with preoperative acoustic hearing, a shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss in the implanted ear was shown to be predictive of better unilateral and bilateral outcomes. However, further research is warranted to better understand the impact of that factor in a larger number of subjects with long-term hearing impairment of greater than 30 years. Better contralateral hearing was associated with poorer unilateral word scores with the implanted ear alone, but better absolute bilateral speech recognition. As a result, it is clear that different models would need to be developed to predict unilateral and bilateral postimplantation scores.

Clinical outcomes for adult cochlear implant recipients experiencing loss of usable acoustic hearing in the implanted ear.

OBJECTIVES: The first aim of the study was to quantify the change in clinical performance after cochlear implantation for adults who had pre-operative levels of acoustic hearing in each ear of greater than or equal to 46% phoneme score on an open-set monosyllabic word test, and who subsequently experienced loss of useable acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. Pre- and postoperative spatial hearing abilities were assessed, because a clinical consideration for candidates with bilateral acoustic hearing is the potential for post-operative reduction in spatial hearing ability. Second, it was of interest to examine whether preoperative localization ability, as an indicator of access to interaural timing and level cues preoperatively, might be correlated with post-operative change in spatial hearing abilities. DESIGN: Clinical performance measures in the binaural condition were obtained preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively in 19 postlinguistically hearing-impaired adult subjects. Preoperative localization ability was investigated as a potential correlate with post-operative change in spatial hearing abilities. RESULTS: Significant postoperative group mean improvement in speech perception was observed on measures of open-set monosyllabic word perception in quiet and on an adaptive sentence test presented in coincident 4-talker babble. Observed benefit was greater for a lower presentation level of 55 dB SPL as compared with a conversational speech level of 65 dB SPL. Self-reported ratings of benefit also improved for all questionnaires administered. Objective assessment of localization ability revealed poorer localization postoperatively, although subjective ratings of post-operative change in localization ability in real-world environments were more variable. Postoperative spatial release from masking was not different to that measured preoperatively for the configuration where the side of the head with the hearing aid was advantaged, but improved postoperatively for the configuration that advantaged the implanted side. Preoperative binaural localization ability was not correlated with postoperative spatial hearing abilities. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study support cochlear implantation for candidates with pre-operative levels of binaural acoustic hearing within the range examined within the present study. This includes subjects with preoperative open-set monosyllabic word scores ranging from 11 to 62% in the implanted ear, and from 16 to 75% on the contralateral side. Post-operative improvement would be expected for those subjects on a range of clinical measures, even when acoustic hearing was lost in the implanted ear after implantation.

Factors influencing electrical place pitch perception in bimodal listeners.

Factors that might affect perceptual pitch match between acoustic and electric stimulation were examined in 25 bimodal listeners using magnitude estimation. Pre-operative acoustic thresholds in both ears, and duration of severe-profound loss, were first examined as correlates with degree of match between the measured pitch and that predicted by the spiral ganglion frequency-position model. The degree of match was examined with respect to (1) the ratio between the measured and predicted pitch percept on the most apical electrode and (2) the ratio between the slope of the measured and predicted pitch function. Second, effect of listening experience was examined to assess whether adaptation occurred over time to match the frequency assignment to electrodes. Pre-experience pitch estimates on the apical electrode were within the predicted range in only 28% of subjects, and the slope of the electrical pitch function was lower than predicted in all except one subject. Subjects with poorer hearing tended to have a lower pitch and a shallower electrical pitch function than predicted by the model. Pre-operative hearing thresholds in the contralateral ear and hearing loss duration were not correlated with the degree of pitch match, and there was no significant group effect of listening experience.

Initial clinical experience with a totally implantable cochlear implant research device.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and issues associated with a research totally implantable cochlear implant (TIKI). STUDY DESIGN: Limited patient trial. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Three adult human subjects with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were implanted with a research TIKI developed by Cochlear Limited and the Co-operative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid Innovation. The TIKI has a lithium ion rechargeable battery, a package-mounted internal microphone, and sound-processing electronics that enable the use of "invisible hearing" without the use of an external device. The TIKI also functions with an external ESPrit 3G sound processor as a conventional cochlear implant. The standard surgical technique was modified to accommodate the larger device package. Postoperatively, subjects used TIKI in both invisible hearing and the conventional ESPrit 3G modes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Device use was recorded in both invisible hearing and ESPrit 3G listening modes. Performance of the internal battery and microphone was assessed over time. Psychophysical MAP data were collected, and speech perception was measured at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively in both listening modes. RESULTS: There were no surgical or postoperative complications. All subjects use both invisible hearing and conventional ESPrit 3G modes. Speech perception outcomes for all patients showed improvement from preoperative scores. As a consequence of the reduced sensitivity of the implanted microphone, speech perception results using the invisible hearing mode were significantly lower than the ESPrit 3G mode. Subjects reported some body noise interference that limited use of the invisible hearing mode; however, all continue to use the invisible hearing mode on a limited daily basis. The rechargeable battery functioned well, with a cycle time indicating the low-power implant design is effective and will deliver long battery life. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the challenges in developing a safe and effective TIKI can be overcome. Three subjects implanted with the research TIKI all reported benefit from routine use. For each subject, hearing outcomes using invisible hearing mode were not as good as when using the external ESPrit 3G sound processor in the conventional mode.

Evaluation of NRT and behavioral measures for MAPping elderly cochlear implant users.

We investigated the acceptability of electrophysiologically derived MAPs and the effect of these MAPs on speech perception in elderly adults using Nucleus 24 cochlear implants. Eight implant recipients aged 75 years or older trialed an electrophysiologically derived MAP and a behavioral MAP. The electrophysiologically derived MAP was based on the threshold and maximum comfort level for electrode 10 and evoked compound action potential thresholds measured on six electrodes using neural response telemetry (NRT). Word perception at 55 dB SPL and sentence perception in noise at 70 dB SPL were assessed after six weeks take-home experience and again after an additional two weeks of experience. During the final two weeks of take-home experience participants indicated their preferred MAP for different listening situations. The NRT derived MAP estimated behavioral T levels well, but underestimated behavioral C levels for apical electrodes in some subjects. Speech perception with NRT derived MAPs was comparable to speech perception with behaviorally measured MAPs. MAPs estimated from NRT data provided good speech perception outcomes for elderly implant recipients and were well tolerated.

Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.

OBJECTIVE: The effect on speech perception of using higher stimulation rates than the 14.4 kHz available in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system was investigated. The study used the Nucleus Research Platform 8 (RP8) system, comprising the CI24RE receiver-stimulator with the Contour electrode array, the L34SP body-worn research speech processor, and the Nucleus Programming Environment (NPE) fitting and Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) software. This system enabled clinical investigation of higher stimulation rates before an implementation in the Freedom cochlear implant system commercially released by Cochlear Limited. DESIGN: Use of higher stimulation rates in the ACE coding strategy was assessed in 15 adult subjects. An ABAB experimental design was used to control for order effects. Program A used a total stimulation rate of between 12 kHz and 14.4 kHz. This program was used for at least the first 3 mo after initial device activation. After evaluation with this program, each subject was provided with two different higher stimulation rate programs: one with a total stimulation rate of 24 kHz and the other with a total stimulation rate of 32 kHz. After a 6-week period of familiarization, each subject identified his/her preferred higher rate program (program B), and this was used for the evaluation. Subjects then repeated their use of program A for 3 wk, then program B for 3 wk, before the second evaluation with each. Speech perception was evaluated by using CNC open-set monosyllabic words presented in quiet and CUNY open-set sentences presented in noise. Preference for stimulation rate program was assessed via a subjective questionnaire. Threshold (T)- and Comfortable (C)-levels, as well as subjective reports of tinnitus, were monitored for each subject throughout the study to determine whether there were any changes that might be associated with the use of higher stimulation rates. RESULTS: No significant mean differences in speech perception results were found for the group between the two programs for tests in either quiet or noise. Analysis of individual subject data showed that five subjects had significant benefit from use of program B for tests administered in quiet and for tests administered in noise. However, only two of these subjects showed benefit in both test conditions. One subject showed significant benefit from use of program A when tested in quiet, whereas another showed benefit with this program in noise. Each subject's preferred program varied. Five subjects reported a preference for program A, eight subjects reported a preference for program B and two reported no overall preference. Preference between the different stimulation rates provided within program B also varied, with 10 subjects preferring 24 kHz and five preferring 32 kHz total stimulation rates. A significant increase in T-levels from baseline measures was observed after three weeks of initial experience with program B, however there was no difference between the baseline levels and those obtained after five weeks of use. No significant change in C-levels was found over the monitoring period. No long-term changes in tinnitus that could be associated with the use of the higher stimulation rates were reported by any of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The use of higher stimulation rates may provide benefit to some but not all cochlear implant recipients. It is important to optimize the stimulation rate for an individual to ensure maximal benefit. The absence of any changes in T- and C-levels or in tinnitus suggests that higher stimulation rates are safe for clinical use.

Evaluation of streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant with the Contour electrode array.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant system with the Contour electrode array. DESIGN: Phase 1 involved an examination of the clinical MAPs for the first 103 recipients implanted with the Contour electrode array in the Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic, to examine the ability to predict the entire MAP based on a smaller number of clinically determined T- and/or C-levels. In phase 2, a subset of the streamlined procedures was selected and clinically evaluated, using speech perception and subjective preference measures. In the first study, the clinical MAP was compared with a MAP based on interpolating across three behavioral T-levels and three behavioral C-levels in a group of newly implanted subjects. The second study investigated the use of a single interpolated profile as the basis to creating the entire MAP. Initial evaluation compared the clinical MAP with two streamlined MAPs, one in which the C-level profile was derived from interpolation across a subset of T-levels and one in which the T-level profile was derived from interpolation across a subset of C-levels. In this case, the interpolated profile was based on five behavioral measures. Subsequently, the use of either three or a single T-level measure as the basis for the interpolated T-level profile was evaluated. Eighteen subjects, who were experienced with the clinical MAP before enrollment in the study, participated in the initial evaluation. The subjects were selected to include a group whose RMS deviation from clinical MAP levels, as determined in Phase 1, was greater than that of the wider population. RESULTS: The Phase 1 analysis showed that as expected, larger differences were observed between the clinical and derived MAP levels as interpolation was applied across fewer measured electrodes and that the use of a single interpolated profile to create the entire MAP resulted in the greatest deviation. No significant group mean difference was found in speech perception scores for newly implanted subjects when mapped with the clinical versus the streamlined MAP based on three behavioral T- and three behavioral C-level measures. For some individual subjects, scores were higher with the streamlined MAP. Subjective reports from the comparative performance questionnaire were consistent with these findings. No significant group mean difference in speech perception scores was found in comparing the clinical MAP with the streamlined MAPs based on a single interpolated T- or C-level profile created from five behavioral measures. Individual effects were observed; however, there was no consistent finding across subjects. The use of three rather than five behavioral T-level measures in the procedure did not result in significantly lower group mean scores; however, significantly poorer scores were obtained for three of the 10 individual subjects. The use of a MAP based on a single behavioral measure did result in poorer speech perception scores when compared with the MAP based on five behavioral T-level measures. These findings were consistent with subjective results from the performance questionnaires administered to determine preference for program across a range of listening situations. CONCLUSIONS: Two streamlined programming procedures are recommended for use in the clinical setting: (1) interpolating across three measured T-levels and three measured C-levels and (2) interpolating across five measured T- or C-levels and using the interpolated profile for fitting of the alternative profile.

Dual electrode stimulation using the nucleus CI24RE cochlear implant: electrode impedance and pitch ranking studies.

OBJECTIVE: The first aim of the study was to determine the reduction in electrode impedances using dual electrode stimulation compared with single electrode stimulation in the new Nucleus CI24RE receiver-stimulator. The CI24RE is connected to the Nucleus 22-electrode intracochlear array. Dual electrode stimulation is produced by electrically coupling two adjacent single electrodes. The second aim was to determine whether dual electrode stimulation produced pitch percepts that were intermediate to the pitch of the two adjacent single electrodes. DESIGN: Eight postlingually hearing-impaired adults with severe to profound loss, implanted with the CI24RE, participated in the study. Electrode impedances were measured by using the standard telemetry function of the system. A pitch ranking task was used to measure pitch for dual and single electrodes. Seven sets of three electrodes along the electrode array were tested. Each set of electrodes consisted of a dual electrode and the two adjacent single electrodes. Pitch ranking was measured using a two-alternative forced choice procedure, with the three electrodes in each set paired with each other as AB and BA pairs. The subject indicated which of the two stimuli had the higher pitch. Random variation in current level was used to remove any loudness cues. RESULTS: The average electrode impedance was 38.6% lower for dual electrodes compared with single electrodes. Three subjects were able to successfully rank the three electrodes in each set in the expected tonotopic order for all seven sets of electrodes along the array. Three other subjects were able to rank sets of electrodes in the tonotopic order for most of the tested positions on the array. The remaining two subjects gave more variable pitch ranking across positions along the array, although successful tonotopic ranking was demonstrated for several sets of electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Dual electrode stimulation with the CI24RE receiver-stimulator produced systematically lower electrode impedances and was capable of producing pitch percepts that were intermediate to those produced by the corresponding adjacent single electrodes. This makes available up to 43 channels of stimulation from 22 single electrodes.

Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether 1) the SPEAK, ACE or CIS speech coding strategy was associated with significantly better speech recognition for individual subjects implanted with the Nucleus CI24M internal device who used the SPrint speech processor, and 2) whether a subject's preferred strategy for use in everyday life provided the best speech recognition. DESIGN: Twelve postlinguistically deaf, newly implanted adults participated. Initial preference for the three strategies was obtained with paired-comparison testing on the first day of implant stimulation with seven of eight U.S. subjects. During the first 12 wk, all subjects used each strategy alone for 4 wk to give them experience with the strategy and to identify preferred speech processor program parameters and settings that would be used in subsequent testing. For the next 6 wk, subjects used one strategy at a time for 2-wk intervals in the same order they had for the first 12 wk. At the end of each 2-wk interval, speech recognition testing was conducted with all three strategies. At the end of the 6 wk, all three strategies were placed on each subject's processor, and subjects were asked to compare listening with these three programs in as many situations as possible for the next 2 wk. When they returned, subjects responded to a questionnaire asking about their preferred strategy and responded to two lists of medial consonants using each of the three strategies. The U.S. subjects also responded to two lists of medial vowels with the three strategies. RESULTS: Six of the 12 subjects in the present study had significantly higher CUNY sentence scores with the ACE strategy than with one or both of the other strategies; one of the 12 subjects had a significantly higher score with SPEAK than with ACE. In contrast, only two subjects had significantly higher CNC word and phoneme scores with one or two strategies than with the third strategy. One subject had a significantly higher vowel score with the SPEAK strategy than with the CIS strategy; and no subjects had significantly higher consonant scores with any strategy. Seven of 12 subjects preferred the ACE strategy, three preferred the SPEAK strategy, and two preferred the CIS strategy. Subjects' responses on a questionnaire agreed closely with strategy preference from comparisons made in everyday life. There was a strong relation between the preferred strategy and scores on CUNY sentences but not for the other speech tests. For all subjects, except one, the preferred strategy was the one with the highest CUNY sentence score or was a strategy with a CUNY score not significantly lower than the highest score. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in research design, there was remarkably close agreement in the pattern of group mean scores for the three strategies for CNC words and CUNY sentences in noise between the present study and the Conversion study (Arndt, Staller, Arcaroli, Hines, & Ebinger, Reference Note 1). In addition, essentially the same percentage of subjects preferred each strategy. For both studies, the strategy with which subjects had the highest score on the CUNY sentences in noise evaluation was strongly related to the preferred strategy; this relation was not strong for CNC words, CNC phonemes, vowels or consonants (Skinner, Arndt, & Staller, 2002). These results must be considered within the following context. For each strategy, programming parameters preferred for use in everyday life were determined before speech recognition was evaluated. In addition, implant recipients had experience listening with all three strategies in many situations in everyday life before choosing a preferred strategy. Finally, 11 of the 12 subjects strongly preferred one of the three strategies. Given the results and research design, it is recommended that clinicians fit each strategy sequentially starting with the ACE strategy so that the preferred programming parameters are determined for each strategy before recipients compare pairs of strategies. The goal is to provide the best opportunity for individuals to hear in everyday life within a clinically acceptable time period (e.g., 6 wk).

Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system.

This study evaluated a range of programming parameters available for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Specifically, the effect on speech perception of adjustments to the number of channels and the stimulation rate in the CIS strategy, and the effect of adjustments to the number of maxima in the ACE strategy were investigated in a group of adult subjects. Based on these findings, and the results of a previous study (Vandali et al., 2000), a number of recommendations for programming were identified that could improve efficiency in the clinical setting where time may be limited. The results suggest that speech perception benefits may be maximized for an individual cochlear implant recipient through concentration on selection of the appropriate stimulation rate. When using the CIS strategy, the number of channels should also be optimized. Adjustment to the number of maxima in the ACE strategy was found to be less likely to provide improvements in speech recognition for a given individual when the number of maxima parameter is set to eight or 12.